<p>I am experimenting in testnet with nonstandard scripts. There was a <a href="http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/b6f797665c07ae87e1f2473a41ddd28724954f8109bc2cd0a5b9d98db057f231" rel="nofollow">transaction</a>, created by me, with the following vout script:</p>

<pre><code>OP_HASH256 19c6197e2140b9d034fb20b9ac7bb753a41233caf1e1dafda7316a99cef41416 OP_EQUALVERIFY
</code></pre>

<p>This hash is <code>DoubleSha256([1, 2, 3])</code>. When I try to create and send transaction with correct input, I've got <code>TX rejected (code -22)</code>. Here is raw transaction:</p>

<pre><code>010000000131f257b08dd9b9a5d02cbc09814f952487d2dd413a47f2e187ae075c6697f7b6000000000403010203ffffffff0140899500000000001976a9147593bcb001ff8859764b4ffd61233bb3a7971c5988ac00000000
</code></pre>

<p>And JSON-decoded version:</p>

<pre><code>{
    "txid" : "67c897e33ef2d9ec4464266c79d7b4a8afc783d8b5401e510227a3d6db42e75c",
    "version" : 1,
    "locktime" : 0,
    "vin" : [{
        "txid" : "b6f797665c07ae87e1f2473a41ddd28724954f8109bc2cd0a5b9d98db057f231",
        "vout" : 0,
        "scriptSig" : {
            "asm" : "197121",
            "hex" : "03010203"
        },
        "sequence" : 4294967295
    }],
    "vout" : [{
        "value" : 0.09800000,
        "n" : 0,
        "scriptPubKey" : {
            "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 7593bcb001ff8859764b4ffd61233bb3a7971c59 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
            "hex" : "76a9147593bcb001ff8859764b4ffd61233bb3a7971c5988ac",
            "reqSigs" : 1,
            "type" : "pubkeyhash",
            "addresses" : [ "mrEeLT14n2DN7fQnTas2vU4QkWjejS94BN" ]
        }
    }]
}
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-20T23:49:19.430Z
What do you mean by "there was a transaction", so you already sent that transaction and is a part of a block and are trying to receive those btc?
marshal craft
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-21T00:11:30.563Z
Yes, this transaction was included in block, you can check using link. BTW someone spent output, maybe it was me, I don't remember.
Zergatul
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-21T22:48:37.357Z
It should of been spent by anyone whose signature hash to '19c6197...'
marshal craft
<transactions><bitcoin-core><script><testnet>
Nonstandard script - TX rejected
Zergatul
# Nonstandard script - TX rejected

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-13)

I am experimenting in testnet with nonstandard scripts. There was a transaction, created by me, with the following vout script:
OP_HASH256 19c6197e2140b9d034fb20b9ac7bb753a41233caf1e1dafda7316a99cef41416 OP_EQUALVERIFY

This hash is DoubleSha256([1, 2, 3]). When I try to create and send transaction with correct input, I've got TX rejected (code -22). Here is raw transaction:
010000000131f257b08dd9b9a5d02cbc09814f952487d2dd413a47f2e187ae075c6697f7b6000000000403010203ffffffff0140899500000000001976a9147593bcb001ff8859764b4ffd61233bb3a7971c5988ac00000000

And JSON-decoded version:
{
    "txid" : "67c897e33ef2d9ec4464266c79d7b4a8afc783d8b5401e510227a3d6db42e75c",
    "version" : 1,
    "locktime" : 0,
    "vin" : [{
        "txid" : "b6f797665c07ae87e1f2473a41ddd28724954f8109bc2cd0a5b9d98db057f231",
        "vout" : 0,
        "scriptSig" : {
            "asm" : "197121",
            "hex" : "03010203"
        },
        "sequence" : 4294967295
    }],
    "vout" : [{
        "value" : 0.09800000,
        "n" : 0,
        "scriptPubKey" : {
            "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 7593bcb001ff8859764b4ffd61233bb3a7971c59 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
            "hex" : "76a9147593bcb001ff8859764b4ffd61233bb3a7971c5988ac",
            "reqSigs" : 1,
            "type" : "pubkeyhash",
            "addresses" : [ "mrEeLT14n2DN7fQnTas2vU4QkWjejS94BN" ]
        }
    }]
}

**Tags:** transactions, bitcoin-core, script, testnet

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What do you mean by "there was a transaction", so you already sent that transaction and is a part of a block and are trying to receive those btc?  
> **username_0**: Yes, this transaction was included in block, you can check using link. BTW someone spent output, maybe it was me, I don't remember.  
> **username_1**: It should of been spent by anyone whose signature hash to '19c6197...'  

---

## 0 answers

