<pre><code>[version]        01000000
[inputs]         01
[txid]           4f94da67fb56cf104850a03c3cbabdd4b0a38d7f47eadedaf670ee0d5fa296c8
[txout]          01000000
[in script len]  8c
[push signature] 493046022100e77bddaaae0f2e684776dff2e55f8d3654e78fbc9439fb53f4d73096eb1258c1022100aa4f0b33e1b99479a5a5a154773be244670d37ff6fd5da1bcc150e35c61fb51701
[push pubkey]    410485b6198b35faee9fb4f9ad6e809704057b930959fac62769858ed52b0cdf00015ad063612d2fe607e2b43f2f0bb4cf9169064872a971ae0be71e651412381d9e
[sequence]       ffffffff
[outputs]        02
[amount]         f44fc00200000000
[out script len] 19
[out script]     76a914fd69e5b61a949baf9c141e060b3c0c43f7637f5888ac
[amount]         9d7ded0600000000 
[out script len] 19
[out script]     76a914fe1a0e4a6163053f76cba0a7053850f07b34a7c288ac
[lock]           00000000
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-19T18:45:52.610Z
It isn't clear how this answers the question.
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-19T19:08:34.443Z
[push signature] 49... and [push pubkey] 41... are the codes. Note: all codes from 0x01 to 0x4b are also pushes
amaclin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-21T07:04:55.217Z
Hehe I really just needed this comment, but thanks :D
Martin Clemens Bloch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-19T18:22:45.663Z
2014-07-19T18:22:45.663Z
amaclin
<p>According to different answers on this site the format of the standard TX claim script should be <code>[OP_PUSH DER(R+S)+HashType OP_PUSH PubKey]</code></p>

<p>The <code>OP_PUSH</code> code is <code>4C</code>, <code>4D</code> or <code>4E</code> depending on push length.</p>

<p>However in this transaction I cannot see the expected code. I could not even find the definition of the one there:
<a href="https://blockchain.info/rawtx/db320e85d8bef3895052d9bf002aeb185fa12eeef8445e3e45f31b9a0c90f9f6?format=hex" rel="nofollow">https://blockchain.info/rawtx/db320e85d8bef3895052d9bf002aeb185fa12eeef8445e3e45f31b9a0c90f9f6?format=hex</a></p>

<p><code>01 00 00 00</code> is txin index, <code>8C</code> is the scriptin length and then comes <code>49</code>.
Instead of <code>49</code> I would expect <code>4C</code>.</p>

<p>Is it because you can leave out the <code>OP_CODEs</code> or what am I missing?</p>

<script><transactions>
I cannot see the expected OP_CODE in transactions
Martin Clemens Bloch
# I cannot see the expected OP_CODE in transactions

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-07-19)

According to different answers on this site the format of the standard TX claim script should be `[OP_PUSH DER(R+S)+HashType OP_PUSH PubKey]`

The `OP_PUSH` code is `4C`, `4D` or `4E` depending on push length.

However in this transaction I cannot see the expected code. I could not even find the definition of the one there:
<https://blockchain.info/rawtx/db320e85d8bef3895052d9bf002aeb185fa12eeef8445e3e45f31b9a0c90f9f6?format=hex>

`01 00 00 00` is txin index, `8C` is the scriptin length and then comes `49`.
Instead of `49` I would expect `4C`.

Is it because you can leave out the `OP_CODEs` or what am I missing?

**Tags:** script, transactions


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-07-19. Score: -1 | Accepted answer

[version]        01000000
[inputs]         01
[txid]           4f94da67fb56cf104850a03c3cbabdd4b0a38d7f47eadedaf670ee0d5fa296c8
[txout]          01000000
[in script len]  8c
[push signature] 493046022100e77bddaaae0f2e684776dff2e55f8d3654e78fbc9439fb53f4d73096eb1258c1022100aa4f0b33e1b99479a5a5a154773be244670d37ff6fd5da1bcc150e35c61fb51701
[push pubkey]    410485b6198b35faee9fb4f9ad6e809704057b930959fac62769858ed52b0cdf00015ad063612d2fe607e2b43f2f0bb4cf9169064872a971ae0be71e651412381d9e
[sequence]       ffffffff
[outputs]        02
[amount]         f44fc00200000000
[out script len] 19
[out script]     76a914fd69e5b61a949baf9c141e060b3c0c43f7637f5888ac
[amount]         9d7ded0600000000 
[out script len] 19
[out script]     76a914fe1a0e4a6163053f76cba0a7053850f07b34a7c288ac
[lock]           00000000

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: It isn't clear how this answers the question.  
> **username_1**: [push signature] 49... and [push pubkey] 41... are the codes. Note: all codes from 0x01 to 0x4b are also pushes  
> **username_0**: Hehe I really just needed this comment, but thanks :D  

---

