Skip to content
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

Cool utility - still worth updating to make work again? #3

Open
tattwamasi opened this issue Nov 11, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Cool utility - still worth updating to make work again? #3

tattwamasi opened this issue Nov 11, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@tattwamasi
Copy link

Hi, I've been trying to get the project running, and found that it was written against an old version of Bitcoinlib. I started doing naive updates to get it going, and got things partially working, but keep hitting one more error as I go through different code paths. I am afraid I'm not doing things properly since I'm not really up to speed on the code. Before spending a lot more time on it, I'm just curious to get a feel of the overall status of it.

Should this be as simple as adapting to a few changed interfaces in bitcoinlib, or are there fundamental library changes or just problems with the approach vs. better alternatives nowadays? I looked around and couldn't find another batch util like this that had the same capabilities, though can do it by combining the paper wallet bulk step with a separate batch funding step. Still seems like a cool util

@mccwdev
Copy link
Member

mccwdev commented Nov 11, 2020

Yes, this code is a bit outdated, since there where a lot of changes in the bitcoin library the last 2 years. But the fundamentals of the library are the same, so wallet creation, fee estimation, updating work more-or-less the same but should be a bit more efficient.

Maybe you can create a PR with your changes and fixes and let me know if there are some issues still. Then I can run some tests and see if it need some more fixes. Would be nice update and make this repo work again.

@tattwamasi
Copy link
Author

Sounds reasonable. I'll keep going and see what happens. Thanks for the reply

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants