From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X6Ti9-0000BZ-9m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:01:41 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X6Ti7-0005kE-Bl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:01:41 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z60so1366847qgd.27 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:01:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; bh=PfLHWsl7s3l8IoeeO12tXSy2NYGhDKfq/kgXw/spBrk=; b=MJCJAqrZQHq3hXu0pYmxe9KbkArtPK/XeAy2fw3tTbRtOMN0KKBrhPwjUFSdfOkW0b Z/I5J2QfCxm0qIAfX8Ugbe6IEujn4vcAd/c5zTLbUCcCNFprjmZRS1qu8PKWL5L/STDV 0sqkLnHcW2zlglGjeawksai4UGcnILX0YjCc9nKgrbZJej08+xFbSUZTl9CtwtOL4E+o LNtJNCA5eFN/147v89UsDTbB8H9pPBsARltZdC2VIkhZl48M5z9glHz6QUyqKtGnvkbz eG4UaPrcwUBIE+qKtJBLzFxbH0CehnCR6kln/vkkM+d2qmxtSJYIXntj+YoJBXswVloG UmLA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+9fCkHRG1Dw+TaWu22SdOeUUwMa+19a6LKgJmPJzZhClm1SLMcH3IdD6/HczzTWRH0AwF X-Received: by 10.224.134.201 with SMTP id k9mr17402608qat.59.1405294373332; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 16:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.22] (bas5-toronto47-845522244.dsl.bell.ca. [50.101.165.68]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y4sm17318243qad.14.2014.07.13.16.32.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 13 Jul 2014 16:32:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Moore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B" Message-Id: <35E6FF51-F9C4-4973-8489-B364E7C27C14@ricmoo.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:32:51 -0400 To: Bitcoin Dev Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.192.54 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1X6Ti7-0005kE-Bl Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Self-dependency transaction question... X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:01:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hey all, I'm working on the UTXO database for my Python implementation of = bitcoind and have found a situation I did not realize was valid, but = since it seems to be, had a quick question. If you look at block #546 the 4th transaction's first input uses its own = block's 3rd transaction as an input. = https://blockchain.info/block/000000005a4ded781e667e06ceefafb71410b511fe0d= 5adc3e5a27ecbec34ae6 My question is, would the other way be valid, that is, could the 3rd = transaction of a block, use the 4th transaction from the same block as = an input? Or are transactions processed strictly top to bottom? Thanks, RicMoo P.S. If it is valid, another question; what would happen if a = transaction was self-referencing? I realize it would be very difficult = to find one, but if I could find a transaction X whose input was X and = had an output Y, would Y be a new valid utxo, without being a generation = transaction input? .=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`= =B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8><(((=BA> Richard Moore ~ Founder Genetic Mistakes Software inc. phone: (778) 882-6125 email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com www: http://GeneticMistakes.com --Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Hey = all,

I'm working on the UTXO database for my Python = implementation of bitcoind and have found a situation I did not realize = was valid, but since it seems to be, had a quick = question.

If you look at block #546 the 4th = transaction's first input uses its own block's 3rd transaction as an = input.

My question is, would the other way be valid, that is, could the = 3rd transaction of a block, use the 4th transaction from the same block = as an input? Or are transactions processed strictly top to = bottom?

Thanks,
RicMoo

P.S. If it is valid, another question; what would happen if a = transaction was self-referencing? I realize it would be very difficult = to find one, but if I could find a transaction X whose input was X and = had an output Y, would Y be a new valid utxo, without being a generation = transaction input?

.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4= =AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8><(((=BA>

Richard Moore = ~ Founder
Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
phone: (778) = 882-6125
email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com<= br>www: http://GeneticMistakes.com=

= --Apple-Mail=_7E7D33C0-54FE-45F8-84F8-8E3E52AEF13B--