1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1X6nDz-0002ls-Dv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:51:51 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.64])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1X6nDy-0003yi-6d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:51:51 +0000
Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90])
by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id SGu21o0021wpRvQ57LrkZZ; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:51:44 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:1e4e:1f4d:332c:3bf6])
by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id SLrk1o0022JF60R3eLrk5c; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:51:44 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:51:43 -0400
Message-ID: <1886579.D2AT3hXWca@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.2 (Linux/3.12.21-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.13.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <35E6FF51-F9C4-4973-8489-B364E7C27C14@ricmoo.com>
References: <35E6FF51-F9C4-4973-8489-B364E7C27C14@ricmoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [76.96.62.64 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1X6nDy-0003yi-6d
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Self-dependency transaction question...
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:51:51 -0000
On Sunday, 13 July 2014, at 7:32 pm, Richard Moore wrote:
> 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?
Even if you could find such a transaction that contained its own digest, and even if such a transaction were valid, it still couldn't conjure new coins into existence. The sum of the outputs must be less than or equal to the sum of the inputs (except in the case of a coinbase transaction). If a transaction were to spend its own output, then the input would be completely used up by the output, leaving no balance for a second output.
|
