Use scantxoutset?
See original GitHub issueThere’s a Bitcoin Core PR that proposes to add scantxoutset
which returns UTXOs for a given xpub
.
This is obviously less powerful than the current watch-only approach, because you’d lose transaction history. Though perhaps Electrum itself can hold on to the history?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:6 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
How to use `scantxoutset` - Bitcoin Stack Exchange
You are trying to use a mainnet encoded address on testnet. That is not valid. You need to use a testnet encoded address....
Read more >scantxoutset - Bitcoin.org
Scans the unspent transaction output set for entries that match certain output descriptors. Examples of output descriptors are: addr(<address>) Outputs whose ...
Read more >How to use `scantxoutset` · Issue #99 · ruimarinho/bitcoin-core
I've looked all over the internet and can't find the proper syntax for the life of me! Note: This is also posted on...
Read more >scantxoutset example for Bitcoin (BTC) | GetBlock.io
scantxoutset example for Bitcoin (BTC). Technical documentation on how to connect to blockchain nodes using available methods. Read about crypto nodes on ...
Read more >Check address balance, get unspent TX, and broadcast thru ...
I'm trying to use the command scantxoutset but without examples it's a bit harder to grasp it's usage. I'm using Bitcoin Core 0.20.1...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
👍
It’s fine if this command is used to find the utxos and related transactions, and just include those in the history. Some of the tx history would be missing (related to spent coins), but that’s the trade-off with this command, and is acceptable.
Though sending fake/dummy transactions to trick electrum into behaving a certain way sounds hacky. Note that there are multiple wallets using the electrum protocol, which might not share the same behavior. It’s better to fix a sane api/protocol, and patch relevant issues upstream in Electrum.
The server could also simply lie to the client and say the dummy transactions are unconfirmed. Then the Electrum client won’t ask for merkle proofs. And the users would still get information about amount and address. Electrum already doesn’t show the number of confirmations when a transaction is Not Verified.