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
|
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 69A2FB50
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:32:54 +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 C8D9510A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:32:52 +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 D739F21B14
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:32:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:32:47 +0200
Message-ID: <2021960.L2etkeoJTU@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4pOGTdopFG2NPGgEkS2y44FwKMEm2_ANQapGirqbZHP+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2D094CEC-3756-45B0-970F-1EB33DF352C5@xbt.hk>
<7465915.Qhm6HcGyAn@strawberry>
<CADvTj4pOGTdopFG2NPGgEkS2y44FwKMEm2_ANQapGirqbZHP+g@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 15:39:58 +0000
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 15:32:54 -0000
Can you tell me where it is enforced?
The only place I found was here;
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1793
which doesn=E2=80=99t enforce it, all that code does is check that the txid=
is=20
unknown or fully spent.
And since the below idea from Russel would change the txid, it would seem n=
o=20
full client would reject this.
Maybe its in a BIP, but I can=E2=80=99t find it in the code.
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
|
