0
It seems Deepbit uses a strange format for it’s transactions on the addresses it owned. For example, in this transaction all inputs but 3 comes from Deepbit. Even Bitcoin core can’t decode addresses or scripts from transactions launched by Deepbit. This seems to apply to all transactions
That time it’s not SegWit. It’s not even Pay to Script since they didn’t exists at that time (and it’s about1Vaddresses). How those inputs are specials, and what’s the purpose ?
3
Those transactions spend Pay-To-Pubkey outputs. These are not special or strange and are actually the very first kind of outputs to ever exist in Bitcoin. These outputs simply do not have an associated address type which is why block explorers do not show an address for them.
Also, just because a block explorer can't show an address type does not mean that Bitcoin Core can't parse it. Block explorers don't just use Bitcoin Core, and Bitcoin Core actually does not display addresses for inputs.
Ah, it’s because they are pay to pubkey input addresses can’t be decoded ? – user2284570 – 2019-04-06T22:26:55.810
Yes. P2PK outputs do not have associated addresses. – Andrew Chow – 2019-04-06T23:07:15.127
Thank you, and what’s the second output address of this transaction : https://blockexplorer.com/tx/eb3b82c0884e3efa6d8b0be55b4915eb20be124c9766245bcc7f34fdac32bccb ?
– user2284570 – 2019-04-07T08:34:51.487@user2284570 That looks like one of the (test) transactions for BIP17, which was never adopted (BIP16 was instead). – Pieter Wuille – 2019-04-07T16:56:00.970
@PieterWuille How did it pass despite being non standard? – user2284570 – 2019-04-07T19:17:31.703
1Non-standard is still valid. Standardness is a node relay policy, not a consensus rule. Non-standard just means a node will not relay the transaction. However it is still valid and can be included in a block and nodes will accept it. – Andrew Chow – 2019-04-07T20:40:24.617
That's the point. How can it be included without being relayed first? – user2284570 – 2019-04-07T20:54:51.650
1By mining it yourself, or having an agreement with a miner/pool to include it. – Pieter Wuille – 2019-04-07T21:00:12.350
@PieterWuille but if it’s not in the mempool of unconfirmed transactions in first place, then it can’t be mined ? And as far I know there had never been such kind of agreement between a mining pool and someone else to broadcast transactions that would be rejected. – user2284570 – 2019-04-08T10:06:31.593
1@user2284570 Standardness is a local policy; anyone is free to run modified software with different standardness rules. And several miners historically have offered including nonstandard transactions for payment. – Pieter Wuille – 2019-04-08T12:57:54.107
@PieterWuille which miners historically offered this ? – user2284570 – 2019-04-08T15:15:35.097
At least eligius did, but if you mine yourself (which may have been the case for the transaction you're referring to), you can put in a block whatever you want. – Pieter Wuille – 2019-04-08T15:19:49.177