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 562EB1380 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:56:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC2FD132 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:56:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so22228847wic.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:56:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NI7v4Aa4j6bUXu53yT2g15agk6oc2FTVqI6jbGNygVY=; b=05xZQd4DR9iWPqa4YYQ6UcP/fr7oay0kKqxXS1FPJJU0aof/nOke6306MLb5lua++1 aId2oMgVLrFSvIxZm1hiSkHK2Aq+AXxxsur8/pyaaaqq01AAEbU7fKYahdM57pgH6sz0 SqLPgS56DzlEWIbBECBQgZA/X1ytiA2dyalmIC6AjTqqifX3LhJR8LeQFf2pbuxhM5iX 49zY6fhV/mQzBg87pHyjjLw1aarc5r17PwD1ZIfRPF1LTesDfLPwpZw+y6/1uP0YNHei 9UsxFobfP/cqDHg9bRH9vFk31xYDRiZIDxLCJgP7QfRkZroHo4Mq1cjWZxgD2Cm0Ysvm uzVA== X-Received: by 10.194.121.131 with SMTP id lk3mr34691790wjb.77.1441148212523; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:56:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:56:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2509151.XgrrNGsCxR@crushinator> From: Btc Drak Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:56:32 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC - BIP: URI scheme for Blockchain exploration X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:56:54 -0000 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: >> Some altcoins (LTC and FTC for example) have the same genesis block hash= . > > That's obviously a design mistake in FTC, but it's not unsolvable. FTC co= uld > move their genesis block to the next block (or the first one that is not > identical to LTC's). > > Bitcoin and all its test chains have different genesis blocks, so I'm not > sure FTC should be a concern for a BIP anyway... That's a very sweeping generalisation indeed. Why should two chains have to have a separate genesis? It's cleaner, but it's certainly not a necessity. You cant exclude this case just because it doesn't fit your concept of neat and tidy. Other BIP proposals that account for alternative chains do not rely on the genesis hash, but instead an identifier. Why should it be any different here? How would you account for a world with XTCoin and Bitcoin which would also share the same genesis hash, but clearly not be the same coin. When I brought up the issue originally, I deliberately steered away from altchains choosing to focus on networks like mainnet, testnet because I think it's easier to repurpose a protocol for an altcoin than it is to make the proposal work for all cases. Take the payment protocol for example. The BIP specifies a URI with bitcoin: well it's just as easy to repurpose that for litecoin: etc than adding something like ?cointype=3Dlitecoin, so that was my reason for not mentioning altcoins at all. If the proposal is made to account for altcoins, genesis hash is definitely not desirable, or at least not genesis hash in isolation, and if that's the case, better to have an identifier.