Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17243486 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:00:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com (mail-pf0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 971421D9 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:00:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f173.google.com with SMTP id d2so45373184pfd.0 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:00:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=bxmJUdnYV7VJQ2OGbTa71/Kvar+Jaorw/eqEdguX4+Q=; b=sqWoP2edJy9mmY/FD5YQmygughrmi/S8yOd0iyA0KxkdvhPYte7PsB/OmMlSNSgmlF rZPeyienG1ppduX2BgPiFjzyVDVRPhSl8PxDJYQ0kobOj5RikJLUJSrYsEB57gEfMbwD Cs+sSYDNBExxTiSKlJGTO0E1rg5oVaZh0YwEchvttqCQZA1TnkxZ5G7EgvTn+gf7XM2A FcBRhDg4udq7jdNAJGpGlUiYktRUxmxk/XicrqKd18sQ3ZBgcF6SvNZTcUsEtZMDmwGK jxtd1+urqr7iGtYpm6QZz6tE6chBN1li3gZDhqD8NlH82sU4u0JBA71Yn8wynY1P1Kqz xFHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=bxmJUdnYV7VJQ2OGbTa71/Kvar+Jaorw/eqEdguX4+Q=; b=dwvO01sPluySAQUsb5xKqYyyrrOhhd9RLWOV0KcMAwcuhmozHc6Ra1T09tzcnLumKQ ose/0pjoH5mNQRn3/mMRGZtyQFGuH9MSi3HjrJo2M4nDcVASG5mM3jGMSWq5wgUxP5OA VHgOFg5Ft41FqV4UhthtYeeUETkQK74Yf2WpyQDk4GhBsNvPz9MmTaprVsf7SJeXKOZX BO32+P+TGzSSGQIsjwt930QcFqfOzdPXZbnAO3K4e5PcllU1+CzgiJAZ6BBzc9k3vCXQ CwC1KX/L8syaIp5WcMRoApn0Tl6MBEWM+qOE6bmxsJRk8hCvcy8AA7UqU0gHvaU/iWeD 7kdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdg4FnYcFDKHKPwSkEbtBa6KUKrxzSPMewIKAC6/E1e1aHGhULqowUBJO9QyNgmaA== X-Received: by 10.98.198.207 with SMTP id x76mr342539pfk.33.1479340833179; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d? ([2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k67sm272538pfk.69.2016.11.16.16.00.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:00:32 -0800 (PST) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=c3=b3n?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Thomas Kerin References: <33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org> From: Eric Voskuil Message-ID: <6191e5f2-4cc7-b3ff-b4e7-bb7979e24d1f@voskuil.org> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:00:33 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:10:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:00:34 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/16/2016 03:58 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount o= f time >> had passed. >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392 >=20 > This is not really the same. BIP30 is not validated after BIP34 is > active because blocks complying with BIP34 will always necessarily > comply with BIP30 (ie coinbases cannot be duplicated after they > include the block height). This is a misinterpretation of BIP30. Duplicate transaction hashes can and will happen and are perfectly valid in Bitcoin. BIP34 does not prevent this. e --7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYLPMiAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOJFwH/imNIT41aaGiSPAZJ9ukpVOT +GGeXnFk3/sw1EtWPl/I5mPeLARjP6v8m0HCNaCeEAJOszQEr3zYfRAiOn9LYyCb pEiT4qIeoGZpVhC6k99RZySBgPL8u9LcV7rKlNWrGpdZPuwSuWVg0ar+Rvr9YCmw jeSnZLo+/+W67DErxcUj9kz4fOn7Ifupb3WewHg4mEQzw7hOtTH91IlIIjqEYOLa qDhaP6L/OO9mrvvtpPojONcoyFmmwYgmjDfsdnXG4HCdJhlgU/oExL4Klvjun1Rc O8wwxW8gXkdC9gAxsCwxBrdByn5aKjSDKHf5AsVKxmYbDpjKkx0AZs/2lvJZ01I= =P2pf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7PECbTlMSa2eDftIHJkRD2roBATkG8oV2--