Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion

Liquidity
#180

You can use this:

http://blockexplorer.nu/address/BXKidrUiYNgRmDeDX61k6CASEJ2HjM8pUF/1/newest

1 Like
#181

I ll take a look at git-multisig later on.

Very sorry for the delay.

Below are the details for my pubkey:

“isvalid” : true,
“address” : “BTHxEUf1NKPjsZ7xZEEYySjWs2WAtFfU9u”,
“ismine” : true,
“isscript” : false,
“pubkey” : “03d4580c1bfa5fd3526e03434983e53b35dd6ea2e2fd337e33976245fc09a8f897”,
“iscompressed” : true,
“account” : “”
}

1 Like
#182

Given the current situation it may be better that we use the current address and the 5 signers of that address for the NBT group. You can be in the NSR group; I think you can use this public key for an NSR address or you can create an other NSR address and post the public key. I haven’t yet allowed the script to handle both NSR and NBT at the same time though. Balancing response rates and general availability the NSR group should now be: @dysconnect, @masterofdisaster, @mhps, @cryptog, @Dhume

1 Like
#183

Why bitcoin accepts up to 15 of 15 multisig and NBT only 5? Is there anything in the code I am not aware of?

#184

I quote @erasmospunk :

Number of signers: 3-of-5 multisig is a good balance between security, redundancy and the technical capability of the current network.
There is a 500 byte limit on the transaction spending script. A rule of thumb for m-of-n multisig is 6 + m73 + n34 bytes for n < 8, and 8 + m73 + n34 bytes otherwise. I assume compressed pub keys and signatures of 72 bytes (they could also be 71 bytes). This makes the 4-of-6 multisig unusable at 502 bytes but brute forcing 2 signatures to be 71 bytes will just make it at 500 byte input script.

#185

Are we ready to handle the CCEDK repayments?

#186

We can do that, but let’s wait until the other 3 people each feel comfortable with the whole process.

1 Like
#187

I’m in (3 of 5) … so we have @dysconnect, @woodstockmerkle, and @joozie so far … @ttutdxh and @masterOfDisaster from the provisional FLOT on the BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js multisig would need to accept this, right?

#188

Sure. Wait for them to say they’re comfortable with the current tools and arrangments. Also, did you try out git-multisig?

#189

Yes; very neat stuff. Thanks for putting that together – it is going to be a big help for us for sure. I am running it under cygwin64 (python 2.7.10) with good results, including the git pull

1 Like
#190

This is really exciting stuff! I figure that something like blockchaininfo for Nu will really help with adoption. This is one of those things.

#191

I find it a must for a number of things, like verifying that the multisig address is really generated with the provided public keys by each FLOT member: http://ttutdxh-nubits.github.io/cointoolkit/?verify=5321034b0bd0f653d4ac0a2e9e81eb1863bb8e5743f6cb1ea40d845b939c225a1a80ff2102a144af74d018501f03d76ead130433335f969772792ec39ce389c8a2341552592103661a4370dfcfbcea25d1800057220f4572b6eecab95bb0670e8676a9e34451dc210234139729dd413c84a71a0bfd6f236790be861b37311cef3240277c940e4b0c072102547427fc2ea3a0ab9ef70f5e1640ff5112b113f65696948f992bd0770b94257155ae#verify

#192

I use windows 32 bit for now. Do I need to change the above in pubconfig.py to my addr and pubkey (mine is 020d369ec7d2d055ea2a98087b3fc100847baab8e14fe1c933981805fb570fffb6 ) ?

#193

For now, no. Changing the address to something not in my flot-operations repository is currently undefined behvaiour for the scripts; I haven’t written anything for complete off-line use, nor a comprehensive initialization script. Until we decide to change the NBT group we shouldn’t change the pub keys part. But it would still be good if you can fork the flot-operation and help with syncing unspent outputs.

On the other hand, if you wish to work with NSR I think you can change the RPC port, set up shared settings (address etc.) and create the flot-operations folder/repository accordingly. I’ll write something for initializing an address snapshot at some point.

#194

I haved tried to run python main.py --recipient BXKidrUiYNgRmDeDX61k6 CASEJ2HjM8pUF --amount 0.12. The scripts starts but asked rpcusername and pword many times like this

Enter username for jsonrpc at 127.0.0.1:14002: xxx
Enter password for flotty in jsonrpc at 127.0.0.1:14002:
Multisig address seems valid.
Snapshot of BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js not found on disk.
Trying to fetch online…
Newest remote snapshot for BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js found at: dc-tcs
Updating address snapshot…
Enter username for jsonrpc at 127.0.0.1:14002: xxx
Enter password for flotty in jsonrpc at 127.0.0.1:14002:
…

I think the reason for asking username and passwd is that I start nu with a non-standard directory with these command line options -conf=d:\foo\bar\nu.conf -datadir=d:\foo\bar\. How do I tell main.py where to look for nu.conf ?

#195

Did you set up the rpc username and password in config.py?

#196

Yes. Note that after I typed in user name and password the script went on. Seems it talked with nu successfully?

I just run nud.exe -conf=d:\foo\bar\nu.conf -datadir=d:\foo\bar\ getinfo and it worked

1 Like
#198

The script no longer runs nud directly, it makes http requests to the RPC server within nu -server or nud. If the RPC server runs correctly things should be ok.

#199

I find the multisig address in the receive address list of the wallet so at least we know the script and the server can work together.

1 Like
#200

Apologies. Server is still in maintenance, rebuilding the database. See notification here.