From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19E1905 for ; 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 ; 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 To: Greg Sanders Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:17:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1528041.Pzi3X2XRt7@strawberry> In-Reply-To: References: <2D094CEC-3756-45B0-970F-1EB33DF352C5@xbt.hk> <2021960.L2etkeoJTU@strawberry> 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 > > > 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