From: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B"
Message-Id: <35E6FF51-F9C4-4973-8489-B364E7C27C14@ricmoo.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:32:51 -0400
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Self-dependency transaction question...
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=iso-8859-1

Hey all,

I'm working on the UTXO database for my Python implementation of =
bitcoind and have found a situation I did not realize was valid, but =
since it seems to be, had a quick question.

If you look at block #546 the 4th transaction's first input uses its own =
block's 3rd transaction as an input.
=
https://blockchain.info/block/000000005a4ded781e667e06ceefafb71410b511fe0d=
5adc3e5a27ecbec34ae6

My question is, would the other way be valid, that is, could the 3rd =
transaction of a block, use the 4th transaction from the same block as =
an input? Or are transactions processed strictly top to bottom?

Thanks,
RicMoo

P.S. If it is valid, another question; what would happen if a =
transaction was self-referencing? I realize it would be very difficult =
to find one, but if I could find a transaction X whose input was X and =
had an output Y, would Y be a new valid utxo, without being a generation =
transaction input?

.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=
=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8><(((=BA>

Richard Moore ~ Founder
Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
phone: (778) 882-6125
email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com
www: http://GeneticMistakes.com


--Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=iso-8859-1

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hey =
all,<div><br></div><div>I'm working on the UTXO database for my Python =
implementation of bitcoind and have found a situation I did not realize =
was valid, but since it seems to be, had a quick =
question.</div><div><br></div><div>If you look at block #546 the 4th =
transaction's first input uses its own block's 3rd transaction as an =
input.</div><div><a =
href=3D"https://blockchain.info/block/000000005a4ded781e667e06ceefafb71410=
b511fe0d5adc3e5a27ecbec34ae6">https://blockchain.info/block/000000005a4ded=
781e667e06ceefafb71410b511fe0d5adc3e5a27ecbec34ae6</a></div><div><br></div=
><div>My question is, would the other way be valid, that is, could the =
3rd transaction of a block, use the 4th transaction from the same block =
as an input? Or are transactions processed strictly top to =
bottom?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>RicMoo</div><div><br></=
div><div>P.S. If it is valid, another question; what would happen if a =
transaction was self-referencing? I realize it would be very difficult =
to find one, but if I could find a transaction X whose input was X and =
had an output Y, would Y be a new valid utxo, without being a generation =
transaction input?</div><div><br><div apple-content-edited=3D"true">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
border-spacing: =
0px;">.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=
=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8&gt;&lt;(((=BA&gt;<br><br>Richard Moore =
~ Founder<br>Genetic Mistakes Software inc.<br>phone: (778) =
882-6125<br>email:&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"mailto:ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com">ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com</a><=
br>www:&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"http://GeneticMistakes.com/">http://GeneticMistakes.com</a></span>=

</div>
<br></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B--