📅 Original date posted:2013-05-22
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:20:22 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Melvin Carvalho
>
> <melvincarvalho at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 22 May 2013 16:07, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at exmulti.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> >>
> >> <melvincarvalho at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Some out of band algo/hash could work so long as there was a one to
> >> > one relationship between the described object and the UUID. In this
> >> > case the
> >> > gensis block may not uniquely identify a coin.
> >>
> >> What does this mean? It seems extremely unlikely that two different
> >> genesis blocks will have the same hash.
> >
> > Two coin ecosystems could have the same genesis block
>
> That has really, really bad side effects. The whole point of the
> bitcoin consensus algorithm is to avoid situations like this.
>
> We don't want to encourage that behavior with code.
In some cases, multiple currencies can use the same blockchain (not just the
singular genesis block). This use case *is* something we want to encourage -
no reason for people to make an entirely new blockchain if their altcoin fits
within the scope of Bitcoin or another existing altchain.
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 15:02:13
in reply to nevent1q…gkw8
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 15:02:13Event JSON
{
"id": "90ce6b56f1a8a9162be9f7e5f669c629e1bd37acfdcce787578cca79891a4f52",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686150133,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f48f714526d322379c9590ee7300f610f029d3880329fd3820bde032fc049d84",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6c45f24cb026fc76044acc2f38e3461d911fc74ffc9d109d6d79865710ebd678",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-05-22\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:20:22 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Melvin Carvalho\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003cmelvincarvalho at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On 22 May 2013 16:07, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at exmulti.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Melvin Carvalho\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003cmelvincarvalho at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Some out of band algo/hash could work so long as there was a one to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e one relationship between the described object and the UUID. In this\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e case the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e gensis block may not uniquely identify a coin.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \n\u003e \u003e\u003e What does this mean? It seems extremely unlikely that two different\n\u003e \u003e\u003e genesis blocks will have the same hash.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e Two coin ecosystems could have the same genesis block\n\u003e \n\u003e That has really, really bad side effects. The whole point of the\n\u003e bitcoin consensus algorithm is to avoid situations like this.\n\u003e \n\u003e We don't want to encourage that behavior with code.\n\nIn some cases, multiple currencies can use the same blockchain (not just the \nsingular genesis block). This use case *is* something we want to encourage - \nno reason for people to make an entirely new blockchain if their altcoin fits \nwithin the scope of Bitcoin or another existing altchain.",
"sig": "30c67453e8dc3596ff39b052915417607148fb8fa243f99fff46dcda26d2789dde7e0d1efe2162bc7af83644d8064a5654b66692ad04c47aeeedeb8f9d64530f"
}