MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL7-sS3CaHvZxUb-Q6HagHYufYnko_T4TBoFhd31rr5OxaiAEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL7-sS2mrBqM7w5T8mRBFvVrCaHy1zT1YsgrHUxRBqdTFqczow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL7-sS3CaHvZxUb-Q6HagHYufYnko_T4TBoFhd31rr5OxaiAEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 01:27:01 +1000
Message-ID: <CAL7-sS1aMqrUzMEbiQUWuxFtVHGv+-is7-BeAuje3rfQs_-JeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: gladoscc <admin@glados.cc>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11397c7a1d6971051e60b7b2
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Uniquely identifying forked chains
Precedence: list

--001a11397c7a1d6971051e60b7b2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify
chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow
identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis
block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that
this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build
systems redundantly.

I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs
through:

1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or
2) a hash of the genesis block hash,  concatenated with block hash(es) of
fork point(s) for a fork chain

This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc
while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.

If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they
would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being
actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.

Thoughts?

--001a11397c7a1d6971051e60b7b2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to=
 identify chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not =
allow identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesi=
s block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that =
this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build sy=
stems redundantly. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other r=
elevant needs through:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or<br>
2) a hash of the genesis block hash,=C2=A0 concatenated with block hash(es)=
 of fork point(s) for a fork chain</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of =
forks, etc while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">If a user wants to specify &quot;whatever chain is the longe=
st with PoW&quot;, they would use (1). In times where multiple chains are c=
oexisting and being actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically iden=
tify a chain. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Thoughts? </p>

--001a11397c7a1d6971051e60b7b2--