-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Will bitcoin-etl support the BTC taproot soft fork #53
Comments
Hi, we'll have to look into it. We rely on the bitcoin node API and do minimal processing in this tool so if the changes will be reflected in the API we'll just need to upgrade our nodes |
I tested with tx 777c998695de4b7ecec54c058c73b2cab71184cf1655840935cd9388923dc288 in block 709632: From the bitcoin node API response
using BtcStreamerAdapter.export_blocks_and_transactions() I get {'index': 0, 'script_asm': '1 667bdd93c7c029767fd516d2ea292624b938fefefa175ac9f1220cf508963ff3', 'script_hex': '5120667bdd93c7c029767fd516d2ea292624b938fefefa175ac9f1220cf508963ff3', 'required_signatures': None, 'type': 'nonstandard', 'addresses': ['nonstandardd3b29c9218fdc3ba0a265fc7cfb1d692ad9e4e18'], 'value': 30000} The address and type information is lost because the dict key used for creating a BtcTransactionOutput does not match the API response data: 'addresses' vs. 'address'
Edit: #55 (comment) |
Any updates on this please? |
It's been added in this PR #57 |
Hi, I was wondering if bitcoin-etl will be supporting the BTC taproot soft fork coming in November. The changes are outlined in BIP340, BIP341, and BIP342.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: