Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element

I’m trying to spend coins from this tx

https://tchain.btc.com/ad7a1ed858eecdd146d9c932779aecae4b33f068d29cf794fad6de20f5a5d449

The scriptpubkey is simple:

1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP OP_SHA256 6b86b273ff34fce19d6b804eff5a3f5747ada4eaa22f1d49c01e52ddb7875b4b OP_EQUAL 

SHA256 (1) = 6b86b273ff34fce19d6b804eff5a3f5747ada4eaa22f1d49c01e52ddb7875b4b

So, I just need to push 1 to the stack using OP_1

Here is my transaction:

bitcoin-cli -testnet decoderawtransaction 020000000149d4a5f520ded6fa94f79cd268f0334baeec9a7732c9d946d1cdee58d81e7aad0000000001510100000001904c96000000000017a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a048700000000 {   "txid": "51060bbaf1b29b2ec3b1bb4eef0d56f61121e4df167768f52e6f67f81321eaf5",   "hash": "51060bbaf1b29b2ec3b1bb4eef0d56f61121e4df167768f52e6f67f81321eaf5",   "version": 2,   "size": 84,   "vsize": 84,   "weight": 336,   "locktime": 0,   "vin": [     {       "txid": "ad7a1ed858eecdd146d9c932779aecae4b33f068d29cf794fad6de20f5a5d449",       "vout": 0,       "scriptSig": {         "asm": "1",         "hex": "51"       },       "sequence": 1     }   ],   "vout": [     {       "value": 0.09850000,       "n": 0,       "scriptPubKey": {         "asm": "OP_HASH160 f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a04 OP_EQUAL",         "hex": "a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a0487",         "reqSigs": 1,         "type": "scripthash",         "addresses": [           "2NFXJy8mvz7ZiT4VVN29xPGC38hTygd3AyJ"         ]       }     }   ] } 

When I use sendrawtransaction I got

mandatory-script-verify-flag-failed (Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element) (code 16) 

Is my redeem script wrong? Or it’s something wrong with the scriptpubkey ?

logic behind bitcoin exchange

Im currently working on exchange program. Just a problem during exchange process. An example, we have an SELLING LIST which list down all trading and selling of bit coin. So, in the meantime, there will be a tons of buyers to see the most appropriate and cheap sales. Give an example that there is one items from the Selling List that selling 1BTC for 1USD, so every buyer will immediately click on the item to buy the item. Hence, the question and issue is here,

Is there any effective way to tackle our program to avoid from crash as caused from multiple user clicked and accessed the item on the same? I’m thinking about FIFO on the user access. Is there any more efficient way to tackle this issue?

Status: 0/unconfirmed, in memory pool. Cnee’s address expired and reject this transaction

Internet connection was lost during transaction. Bitcoins gone, but no chance to confirm transaction at cnee side. So after some hours cnee’s address expired and reject this trnsctn. Now, as 24H passed, status is still unconfirmed. As I expect, these funds will be returned for some time. The question is – am I right and what is the time limit, usually, I have to start worrying after or what I can do now to return the bits. Thanks for advice.

Does Bitcoin Core v0.17.0 run on native wayland?

I’m trying to run bitcoin core v0.17.0 on Wayland on Fedora 29. When I run bitcoin-qt I receive

Warning: Ignoring XDG_SESSION_TYPE=wayland on Gnome. Use QT_QPA_PLATFORM=wayland to run on Wayland anyway.

Running with QT_WPA_PLATFORM=wayland yields

QSocketNotifier: Can only be used with threads started with QThread

Is there a configuration change that will allow bitcoin core v0.17.0 to run on native wayland? Or what is the best way to provide a bug report to the core devs regarding wayland issues?

Are sellers more vulnerable to fraud than buyers when doing business?

The Bitcoin white paper says:

Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. … Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.

My understanding is that Satoshi decided to protect the sellers and this seems to suggest that he thought that sellers are more vulnerable to business fraud. (He surely didn’t mean that buyers are not important, but his design decision favors the sellers, I think.)

Is there any existing evidence, report, or statistical data that support that sellers are more vulnerable to fraud?

Bitcoin-cli how to createrawtransaction without spending entire input?

Is there any possible way to create a raw transaction using Bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction API that doesn’t require spending the entire input?

What I’m doing now is consuming that entire input sending 0.01 to the address specified and sending the change back to the address I’m withdrawing from.

If I deposit 0.5 BTC to my wallet and withdraw 0.01 is there any method to be able to work with my 0.49 BTC I have remaining without having it consumed entirely and being sent to the change address because then I’m stuck waiting for it to confirm and it gives off the impression my wallet balance is 0 when it’s really 0.49 BTC.