📅 Original date posted:2015-08-28
📝 Original message:Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as effective to use either:
1) the genesis block hash, or
2) the block hash of the first block in a fork?
Every block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that chain, so there's no need to incorporate the genesis block hash again.
On Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 1:27 am, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify
> chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow
> identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis
> block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that
> this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build
> systems redundantly.
>
> I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs
> through:
>
> 1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or
> 2) a hash of the genesis block hash, concatenated with block hash(es) of
> fork point(s) for a fork chain
>
> This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc
> while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.
>
> If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they
> would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being
> actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.
>
> Thoughts?
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 17:38:21
in reply to nevent1q…5a3u
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetPublished at
2023-06-07 17:38:21Event JSON
{
"id": "7d569b39e1643a03ebfe447270c651752b51118b3bcbadf0cc23f529e03ae1e5",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686159501,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c9822ca5db05dac6661bf90085c42660f5ffbe0dba999a44b009bb3543cc489b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"386c0f886328aec787554a35588a039c46ef3465518d6cd56e246142c11c3c13",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"89c990753efe48eccd01dc895adb0c79f191c2b5473c7aeefcdaafee1c8e3c27"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-28\n📝 Original message:Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as effective to use either:\n\n1) the genesis block hash, or\n2) the block hash of the first block in a fork?\n\nEvery block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that chain, so there's no need to incorporate the genesis block hash again.\n\n\nOn Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 1:27 am, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify\n\u003e chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow\n\u003e identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis\n\u003e block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that\n\u003e this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build\n\u003e systems redundantly.\n\u003e \n\u003e I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs\n\u003e through:\n\u003e \n\u003e 1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or\n\u003e 2) a hash of the genesis block hash, concatenated with block hash(es) of\n\u003e fork point(s) for a fork chain\n\u003e \n\u003e This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc\n\u003e while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.\n\u003e \n\u003e If a user wants to specify \"whatever chain is the longest with PoW\", they\n\u003e would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being\n\u003e actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.\n\u003e \n\u003e Thoughts?",
"sig": "e780df468bbde57e3159dd248ce81d1348ddef81e85dbd54f0a64a10b815fc6d7e2c6d98ca447dd404c72ddb7616df75e8dcbd9e853403496d21083ac78f08ae"
}