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 32709B57 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:24:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f49.google.com (mail-it0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2900148 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f49.google.com with SMTP id c20so39862037itb.0 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:24:50 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=b/P/e+dsjtVutMphLDdJdi/Z2W4qVHHU4dCC+fpVjSw=; b=j+VNarBYTcS0x/V0//Y3yrdARrUxRL7CElMJDvvqONboKodAK+cnvBvCZHjQ9IO8Zn JOSa4O25OjAqIRpHVY5KKy937ly/b84MpyWv2OCjqUE6d+Ef+dQjPIfxgJsp5ZYwyVvT 5d0LwoNI9CoT6I3tbvr7pu8IBH2VZPLB4Pwyv5BJ5jb4Xregpk5dW39ceaY9R9MgwugP DNcwZx8kAtZArzHGloo4h/BpbNGlUC9o8ZOpcAual5MZ2UQXMBW0fDMUHZ2UaaiTkKge a3ogUxfriFh9gPzLgoR9CePuE7Yr+lwcE4Hlxvw/uvY0D0M0lahYau9C+4Fv4ZHDHZtT RNuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b/P/e+dsjtVutMphLDdJdi/Z2W4qVHHU4dCC+fpVjSw=; b=Xnj42tTbXZdt3eJ95ycWG8vARY168AYrrRqpdydFUrxzrjCrhfimRp99ZMd7yuKETv ui03k02EGQs44NUiqMd6JHRqdkTRUDWOt84PyvARos0tUsEAG83nAqYe1B+UEjk9gnTZ 7XqLzvyarVD7+9LhG3AkCK0axXGjuOfPNzqDA6aNd/j8mpwtNpTMj2UNBlJl1bRnJoBg 3qRf1ygK0uZloAHcyZ9/cPqHNZGhMZJY7w0AAt+dkN+iwiM/ctdgt8ZvbqNnm6oW9p13 81nb6OEDYXUYPpw6/xcG+75oJP2GmT5/GxVs0yqSXk0xN6ifyqfik+p+UPDs6MJZLiCn kzHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdxMgw3kLtJIEoaJyO0v+t1zo6q21CMkBhpiBloOVrRRiv7qN1X+cIX4XnC5oCZvcE/hnVc5ARMwDArKg== X-Received: by 10.36.31.200 with SMTP id d191mr9860044itd.70.1479345889947; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:24:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.119.199 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:24:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6191e5f2-4cc7-b3ff-b4e7-bb7979e24d1f@voskuil.org> References: <33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org> <6191e5f2-4cc7-b3ff-b4e7-bb7979e24d1f@voskuil.org> From: Alex Morcos Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:24:49 -0500 Message-ID: To: Eric Voskuil , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11446e864536bc0541750e5e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Thomas Kerin 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 01:24:51 -0000 --001a11446e864536bc0541750e5e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable huh? can you give an example of how a duplicate transaction hash (in the same chain) can happen given BIP34? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a11446e864536bc0541750e5e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
huh?
can you give an example of how a duplicate transa= ction hash (in the same chain) can happen given BIP34? =C2=A0=C2=A0


On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On 11/16/2016 03:58 PM, Jo= rge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amou= nt of time
>> had passed.
>> https://github.com/bitcoin= /bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392
>
> 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 c= an
and will happen and are perfectly valid in Bitcoin. BIP34 does not
prevent this.

e


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a11446e864536bc0541750e5e--