From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:32:47 +0200
Message-ID: <2021960.L2etkeoJTU@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4pOGTdopFG2NPGgEkS2y44FwKMEm2_ANQapGirqbZHP+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2D094CEC-3756-45B0-970F-1EB33DF352C5@xbt.hk>
	<7465915.Qhm6HcGyAn@strawberry>
	<CADvTj4pOGTdopFG2NPGgEkS2y44FwKMEm2_ANQapGirqbZHP+g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork
Precedence: list

Can you tell me where it is enforced?

The only place I found was here;
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1793

which doesn=E2=80=99t enforce it, all that code does is check that the txid=
 is=20
unknown or fully spent.
And since the below idea from Russel would change the txid, it would seem n=
o=20
full client would reject this.

Maybe its in a BIP, but I can=E2=80=99t find it in the code.

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 16:59:12 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
> It is a consensus rule
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>=20
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:39:13 CEST Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> >=20
> > wrote:
> >>  Someone told me a while back that it would be more natural if we move
> >>  the
> >>=20
> >> nHeight from the coinbase script to the coinbase locktime.  Have you
> >> considered doing this?
> >=20
> > That change would not be a consensus change and thus free to make any
> > day.


=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel