Transaction

3c8bfb399b7e7bb40bc2d5465a02e89cf9b7a1829a8b6ab1e29e4499b6dfd39b
Timestamp (utc)
2024-03-24 19:09:39
Fee Paid
0.00000013 BSV
(
0.00865891 BSV
-
0.00865878 BSV
)
Fee Rate
10.46 sat/KB
Version
1
Confirmations
97,391
Size Stats
1,242 B

2 Outputs

Total Output:
0.00865878 BSV
  • j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMÞ<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=816.msg11593#msg11593">Quote from: lfm on August 29, 2010, 04:41:10 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=816.msg11583#msg11583">Quote from: Gespenster on August 29, 2010, 11:35:19 AM</a></div><div class="quote">The ByteReverse macro should probably be skipped before doing SHA-256 transforms.<br/></div><br/>before and after? theres several ByteReverse calls that probably need removal for the nonce ant the timestamp also.<br/><br/>in fact you may be able to do away completely with the temp block header thats mostly just there so it can be ByteReversed.<br/><br/><br/></div><br/>I think all of them can go away since SHA-256 expects it's bytestream to be big-endian. The fastest way to find out I think is to run the code through a debugger on both a BE and LE machine at the same time and compare results at every step. </div> text/html
    https://whatsonchain.com/tx/3c8bfb399b7e7bb40bc2d5465a02e89cf9b7a1829a8b6ab1e29e4499b6dfd39b