To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=c3=b3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>
References: <CAFp6fsGmynRXLCqKAA+iBXObGOZ2h3DVW8k5L9kSfbPmL1Y-QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CEDAD65E-512A-43CA-9BD6-56F7D9E6897C@voskuil.org>
	<CADJgMzunxU2-7Z_ZPafNY4BPRu0x9oeh6v2dg0nUYqxJbXeGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org>
	<CADL_X_dJ8YuDevKR4xA+PTy9D089dAeZ1F3ZwSYG6MrMvkLweg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A98BB7F2-7AE2-4D84-9F38-7E7E9D5D3210@voskuil.org>
	<e86b5b85-591d-5342-6a75-3ebd501f1789@thomaskerin.io>
	<CABm2gDqy+iBdw3W2dap8rdi5TD-5_VSmFnakvEbYeAtgpdLgMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <6191e5f2-4cc7-b3ff-b4e7-bb7979e24d1f@voskuil.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:00:33 -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: <CABm2gDqy+iBdw3W2dap8rdi5TD-5_VSmFnakvEbYeAtgpdLgMg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/16/2016 03:58 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount o=
f time
>> had passed.
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392
>=20
> This is not really the same. BIP30 is not validated after BIP34 is
> active because blocks complying with BIP34 will always necessarily
> comply with BIP30 (ie coinbases cannot be duplicated after they
> include the block height).

This is a misinterpretation of BIP30. Duplicate transaction hashes can
and will happen and are perfectly valid in Bitcoin. BIP34 does not
prevent this.

e


--7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2
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)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYLPMiAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOJFwH/imNIT41aaGiSPAZJ9ukpVOT
+GGeXnFk3/sw1EtWPl/I5mPeLARjP6v8m0HCNaCeEAJOszQEr3zYfRAiOn9LYyCb
pEiT4qIeoGZpVhC6k99RZySBgPL8u9LcV7rKlNWrGpdZPuwSuWVg0ar+Rvr9YCmw
jeSnZLo+/+W67DErxcUj9kz4fOn7Ifupb3WewHg4mEQzw7hOtTH91IlIIjqEYOLa
qDhaP6L/OO9mrvvtpPojONcoyFmmwYgmjDfsdnXG4HCdJhlgU/oExL4Klvjun1Rc
O8wwxW8gXkdC9gAxsCwxBrdByn5aKjSDKHf5AsVKxmYbDpjKkx0AZs/2lvJZ01I=
=P2pf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2--