<p>From the <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3038eb63e8a674b4818cb5d5e461f1ccf4b2932f/src/main.cpp#L1415-L1426" rel="nofollow">source code</a>:</p>

<pre><code>// Check whether the failure was caused by a
// non-mandatory script verification check, such as
// non-standard DER encodings or non-null dummy
// arguments; if so, don't trigger DoS protection to
// avoid splitting the network between upgraded and
// non-upgraded nodes.
</code></pre>

<p>It sounds like maybe your transaction signature isn't standard.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-05T16:18:57.337Z
In this case it's very likely it's BIP62 low-s standardness.
Claris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-05T15:33:12.287Z
2015-11-05T15:33:12.287Z
Jimmy Song
<p>What does this error mean?</p>

<p>I've manually constructed a transaction, and I get this error when I try to insert it in to the network.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-22T13:55:22.037Z
did you solved the problem? I have faced the similar problem when i tried to send some bitcoin to multiple output addresses. when i tried with a single output address it worked.
suhailvs
<raw-transaction>
64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (No error) (-26)
inersha
# 64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (No error) (-26)

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-11-05)

What does this error mean?

I've manually constructed a transaction, and I get this error when I try to insert it in to the network.

**Tags:** raw-transaction

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: did you solved the problem? I have faced the similar problem when i tried to send some bitcoin to multiple output addresses. when i tried with a single output address it worked.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-11-05. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

From the source code:
// Check whether the failure was caused by a
// non-mandatory script verification check, such as
// non-standard DER encodings or non-null dummy
// arguments; if so, don't trigger DoS protection to
// avoid splitting the network between upgraded and
// non-upgraded nodes.

It sounds like maybe your transaction signature isn't standard.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: In this case it's very likely it's BIP62 low-s standardness.  

---

