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
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19E1905
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:17:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA53D13D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:17:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2766524C9A;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:17:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:17:02 +0200
Message-ID: <1528041.Pzi3X2XRt7@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAB3F3DtuYjxp6Cg-nprq7qZanF_F2y0xUM7RUzoJ7Fdn9HtJXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2D094CEC-3756-45B0-970F-1EB33DF352C5@xbt.hk>
<2021960.L2etkeoJTU@strawberry>
<CAB3F3DtuYjxp6Cg-nprq7qZanF_F2y0xUM7RUzoJ7Fdn9HtJXw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:17:53 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:17:09 -0000
I notice you didn=E2=80=99t read the actual full line :)
If you click on it, you=E2=80=99ll notice at the end of the line it says;
=E2=80=9Cchainparams.GetConsensus().BIP34Hash=E2=80=9D
so, this is about BIP34.
On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 17:44:40 CEST Greg Sanders wrote:
> That's BIP30, he linked BIP34:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L3004
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
>=20
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Can you tell me where it is enforced?
> >=20
> > The only place I found was here;
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1793
> >=20
> > which doesn=E2=80=99t enforce it, all that code does is check that the =
txid is
> > unknown or fully spent.
> > And since the below idea from Russel would change the txid, it would
> > seem
> > no
> > full client would reject this.
> >=20
> > Maybe its in a BIP, but I can=E2=80=99t find it in the code.
> >=20
> > 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
|
