To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CABm2gDr2-MCiaFFjgUFP5Xc0fQfuqJ3=ZkrzjHqmOiwRZ50CBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<d58ee114-00fd-23c8-9ca7-9a4b28c26f27@voskuil.org>
	<CAE-z3OX5vak25UWcmBSe63OmoOVoGB394WmwyWwUcSxWeDOLhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<e0e6679f-aec6-a579-667d-b5b58ea2360b@voskuil.org>
	<CAE-z3OXfJa3Lewtrafm25bdfPa=eiarOAXBNbgc3ccTi7Qoe6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <5ef23296-5909-a350-ab11-e717f8fffc41@voskuil.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 03:22:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OXfJa3Lewtrafm25bdfPa=eiarOAXBNbgc3ccTi7Qoe6A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="DtpSSIt28nqorWbD08hVUPGlwLuDDgmtH"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP30 and BIP34 interaction (was Re: [BIP
 Proposal] Buried Deployments)
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--DtpSSIt28nqorWbD08hVUPGlwLuDDgmtH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/17/2016 02:22 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org
> <mailto:eric@voskuil.org>> wrote:
>=20
>     > This means that all future transactions will have different txids=
=2E..
>     rules do guarantee it.
>=20
>     No, it means that the chance is small, there is a difference.
>=20
> I think we are mostly in agreement then?  It is just terminology.

Sure, if you accept that mostly is not fully - just as unlikely is not
impossible.

> In terms of discussing the BIP, barring a hash collision, it does make
> duplicate txids impossible.

That's like saying, as long as we exclude car accidents from
consideration, car accidents are impossible.

> Given that a hash collision is so unlikely, the qualifier should be
> added to those making claims that require hash collisions rather than
> those who assume that they aren't possible.
>=20
> You could have said "However nothing precludes different txs from havin=
g
> the same hash, but it requires a hash collision".

I generally try to avoid speaking in tautologies :)

> Thinking about it, a re-org to before the enforcement height could allo=
w
> it.  The checkpoints protect against that though.
> =20
>     As such this is not something that a node
>     can just dismiss.=20
>=20
> The security of many parts of the system is based on hash collisions no=
t
> being possible.

This is not the case.

Block hash duplicates within the same chain are invalid as a matter of
consensus, which is the opposite of assuming impossibility.

Tx hash collisions are explicitly allowed in the case that preceding tx
with the same hash is unspent. This is also not a reliance on the
impossibility of hash collision. Core certainly implements this distincti=
on:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2419-L2426

Address hashes and script hashes can collide without harming the
security of Bitcoin (although address owner(s) may experience harm).
Rare in this case is sufficient because of this distinction.

Compact blocks contemplates hash collisions:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0152.mediawiki#Random_col=
lision_probabilty

Checkpoints aren't part of Bitcoin security, so even the remote
possibility of two different potential blocks, with the same hash, at
the same height in the same chain, does not indicate a problem.

There is no case where the security of Bitcoin assumes that hashes never
collide. Consensus rules have specific handling for both block hash
collisions and tx hash collisions.

e


--DtpSSIt28nqorWbD08hVUPGlwLuDDgmtH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYLZLbAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOFTQIAIdcDnwiwfv+5jFhwr6ZUU8J
2gSZTlVCO7p7RYwqBrvB3oEm6N7Mxspn751SLzIea22LoPEL2OqJRB2l/rYwGJ1k
lQ2eyInXt8CQICj0Dfa9p6zJnPzIGbauz4z462gc+XGceJv36sShrE3X5ZS61b5F
W2vSC6jNBz3OlRg3KocCyhNaUDxDqWslE7iMdRzFNTCTsxWu3bc0ioblCsjvmmJo
Xeb0+5kitMQK/jh0BvT2Tt1/0B9Ymeq9QeDg8sSaK9Cyw15ZEBmCPLIdYnumB7V3
Jw8eo92FaXtHaaSwhRYIOn/MqrkIgsy4/+zk52LddXz+2pvsyvLRR+rCKhVCfJA=
=zb3u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--DtpSSIt28nqorWbD08hVUPGlwLuDDgmtH--