📅 Original date posted:2012-07-06
📝 Original message:> But those issues are solvable through other, non-backwards incompatible
> means. For example, mandate that a <transaction hash, output index> refers
> to the first such pair that is not already spent. No?
Yes, that is essentially what BIP 30 did.
We want to do this also, partly for "belt and suspenders" security but
mostly for two reasons:
1. To test using block/transaction version numbers to smoothly roll
out changes. The next change we need to make might be prompted by some
crisis; better to learn any lessons now, when we have the luxury of
time to fix problems that might crop up.
2. We think we'll all appreciate the change in a year or three, when
the whole network has upgraded and we can start writing code that
assumes all new blocks past a certain checkpoint contain their height;
that should make it easier to do things like figure out whether or not
an orphan chain can possibly be part of the main chain.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4…d44kw
2023-06-07 10:19:53
in reply to nevent1q…hsla
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 10:19:53Event JSON
{
"id": "8e3b7f279bee61e2c555cbc330318ee45d6b8f3bd2a718660d80c2055b41a64c",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686133193,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"91d48645ee2fc11d41b139a1cb2582257810fa8d5c6e7516cf9fda8a47515a1c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"95e02a78959489671273a2b2fe8438fa0b4fa65e29c0ddf6735faafef3e5f34c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-07-06\n📝 Original message:\u003e But those issues are solvable through other, non-backwards incompatible\n\u003e means. For example, mandate that a \u003ctransaction hash, output index\u003e refers\n\u003e to the first such pair that is not already spent. No?\n\nYes, that is essentially what BIP 30 did.\n\nWe want to do this also, partly for \"belt and suspenders\" security but\nmostly for two reasons:\n\n1. To test using block/transaction version numbers to smoothly roll\nout changes. The next change we need to make might be prompted by some\ncrisis; better to learn any lessons now, when we have the luxury of\ntime to fix problems that might crop up.\n\n2. We think we'll all appreciate the change in a year or three, when\nthe whole network has upgraded and we can start writing code that\nassumes all new blocks past a certain checkpoint contain their height;\nthat should make it easier to do things like figure out whether or not\nan orphan chain can possibly be part of the main chain.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen",
"sig": "58c048367d510e2f956c138e23da2f8883eff0f9d899d3a3dab56adfdf509ec06a0c9efd330b84758ff2d1b2e04fd369313034bc9b7973454168c8f8b4da1907"
}