Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SnBw3-0002oG-Cg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:03:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of coinlab.com designates 209.85.217.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.175; envelope-from=peter@coinlab.com; helo=mail-lb0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com ([209.85.217.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SnBw2-0008Pk-CJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:03:15 +0000 Received: by lbol5 with SMTP id l5so14561169lbo.34 for ; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:03:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=reLWvgvM+e9glmhj5S2/SwsPAtF9wv1tYIqa6LWm4uA=; b=JDqRdJ5M88HNziEZirKVbODY48xhUP9E3EisNnUd3NtFX2pibZeISf03C1kK790dsD T1N9sYKfhuHI8TkfoHjhfqlrO1bVclnXqvrKzvUoBBvYW4b5QNt3jfWm9a+Aqj2Gzaa/ EXu3HUJ3NKyxU4F1B/Uahs2PKUEavkrz26lrKbj1OmSznHqA/PofkuDN4K6JAdwx2QRW O5HrJr4m8G+s8pKXghDcHw0yJQaXrv/08hyEIhrugvBa0IpmSSjTcPMao4QKkN/FDMcT jjNU23UI/759iygipueqyUHPslSgCkd2qjZwzE02nIsufIOApo6HDyaqPzBfFhBink/O fERA== Received: by 10.112.10.198 with SMTP id k6mr14167037lbb.83.1341594187486; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:03:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.11.101 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:02:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Peter Vessenes Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:02:47 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe3502fa582b04c42c3c19 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6LDN5s11jYxVm8pBUIt3NaDC3V2X1LEswwIvIwSnhRcEjv50xvDguDvpYDYKkeEVMTw09 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 BODY: HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1SnBw2-0008Pk-CJ Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:03:15 -0000 --e0cb4efe3502fa582b04c42c3c19 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes wrote: > > The proposal is simple, and it's a small change for miners, I imagine. > > > > My question is: why? > > > > I worry about stuffing too many requirements on the coinbase. I suppose > > the coinbase is easily extendible if we run out of bytes, but I think I'd > > like to see some more discussion / good / bad type cases for making this > > change. What do we get over just the prev_hash by doing this? > > With the existing setup (sans height in coinbase), you might not have > unique transactions, with all that entails. > > Yes, I've experienced that myself, actually. > > Anyway, some background would be great; if I missed it, I'm happy to go > > read up, but I didn't see any links on the wiki. > > Gavin wrote some notes on upgrades and BIP16 lessons-learned at > https://gist.github.com/2355445 > > This is a super coherent and excellent writeup. I may come back with more thoughts, I want to let it percolate. Thanks! > -- > Jeff Garzik > exMULTI, Inc. > jgarzik@exmulti.com > -- ------------------------------ [image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES CEO *peter@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes 811 FIRST AVENUE / SUITE 480 / SEATTLE, WA 98104 --e0cb4efe3502fa582b04c42c3c19 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Gar= zik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab.com> wrote:
> The proposal is simple, and it's a small change for miners, I imag= ine.
>
> My question is: why?
>
> I worry about stuffing too many requirements on the coinbase. I suppos= e
> the coinbase is easily extendible if we run out of bytes, but I think = I'd
> like to see some more discussion / good / bad type cases for making th= is
> change. What do we get over just the prev_hash by doing this?

With the existing setup (sans height in coinbase), you might not have=
unique transactions, with all that entails.

Yes, I've experienced tha= t myself, actually.
=A0
> Anyway, some background would be great; if I missed it, I'm happy = to go
> read up, but I didn't see any links on the wiki.

Gavin wrote some notes on upgrades and BIP16 lessons-learned at
https://gist.= github.com/2355445

T= his is a super coherent and excellent writeup. I may come back with more th= oughts, I want to let it percolate. Thanks!=A0
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com



--
=

3D=PETER=A0VESSE= NES=A0
CEO

peter@coinlab.com=A0=A0/=A0=A0206.486.6856 = =A0/=A0SKYPE:=A0vessenes=A0
811 FIRST AVENUE =A0/=A0 SUITE 480 =A0/=A0 SEATTLE, WA 98104

--e0cb4efe3502fa582b04c42c3c19--