📅 Original date posted:2015-05-19
📝 Original message:On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Christian Decker <
decker.christian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Stephen, I hadn't thought about BIP 34 and we need to address this
> in both proposals. If we can avoid it I'd like not to have one
> transaction hashed one way and other transactions in another way.
>
The normalized TXID cannot depend on height for other transactions.
Otherwise, it gets mutated when been added to the chain, depending on
height.
An option would be that the height is included in the scriptSig for all
transactions, but for non-coinbase transctions, the height used is zero.
I think if height has to be an input into the normalized txid function, the
specifics of inclusion don't matter.
The previous txid for coinbases are required to be all zeros, so the
normalized txid could be to add the height to the txids of all inputs.
Again, non-coinbase transactions would have heights of zero.
> Is there a specific reason why that was not chosen at the time?
>
I assumed that since the scriptSig in the coinbase is specifically intended
to be "random" bytes/extra nonce, so putting a restriction on it was
guaranteed to be backward compatible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150519/acacf82f/attachment.html>;
Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g6…sl5wd
2023-06-07 15:35:16
in reply to nevent1q…t00w
Author Public Key
npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdPublished at
2023-06-07 15:35:16Event JSON
{
"id": "5d2f59c2afe65ec3059e868bde45ad27f0e903ac5378bad0b83145f3d4634354",
"pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e",
"created_at": 1686152116,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d4296383f49c1a9f727ee325cad107826210d0f0a44bfb48a025773c99b7560e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b9d552144f03d9ecf050d452c75863f91ad981499d76bdc7fe4dbaa34a0b97b5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-19\n📝 Original message:On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Christian Decker \u003c\ndecker.christian at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Thanks Stephen, I hadn't thought about BIP 34 and we need to address this\n\u003e in both proposals. If we can avoid it I'd like not to have one\n\u003e transaction hashed one way and other transactions in another way.\n\u003e\n\nThe normalized TXID cannot depend on height for other transactions.\nOtherwise, it gets mutated when been added to the chain, depending on\nheight.\n\nAn option would be that the height is included in the scriptSig for all\ntransactions, but for non-coinbase transctions, the height used is zero.\n\nI think if height has to be an input into the normalized txid function, the\nspecifics of inclusion don't matter.\n\nThe previous txid for coinbases are required to be all zeros, so the\nnormalized txid could be to add the height to the txids of all inputs.\nAgain, non-coinbase transactions would have heights of zero.\n\n\n\u003e Is there a specific reason why that was not chosen at the time?\n\u003e\n\nI assumed that since the scriptSig in the coinbase is specifically intended\nto be \"random\" bytes/extra nonce, so putting a restriction on it was\nguaranteed to be backward compatible.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150519/acacf82f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "ae8afb981c627b942f7d4308b3a2298c4fca8688f23a6259caa4d151b08392354feb9220ef6fa0dde0861344becc8d95d01d01cfcbdc41fc6acf18ce16f369e9"
}