📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16
📝 Original message: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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 03:58 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount 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 can
> and will happen and are perfectly valid in Bitcoin. BIP34 does not
> prevent this.
>
> e
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/31f43652/attachment.html>;
Alex Morcos [ARCHIVE] /
npub10z…3xfzw
2023-06-07 17:54:21
in reply to nevent1q…694v
Author Public Key
npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzwSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:21Event JSON
{
"id": "2b4c35f7c89f8ecfc1a964503f58653850f1d7f10b439c6f70ebb665f844973c",
"pubkey": "78aa6925095b629d95a9e79aed6ed9da0973239bc6eedf11af42240f0e1d755c",
"created_at": 1686160461,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50cde70d11f9c69cc787e52010ba0256918f920ad1f9811ad6566a1543ec1282",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2e03322d8705ce6c41f7a7071ef7dd10736c319ba6da17c51c4f968f248c71fa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16\n📝 Original message:huh?\ncan you give an example of how a duplicate transaction hash (in the same\nchain) can happen given BIP34?\n\n\nOn Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 11/16/2016 03:58 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount of\n\u003e time\n\u003e \u003e\u003e had passed.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e This is not really the same. BIP30 is not validated after BIP34 is\n\u003e \u003e active because blocks complying with BIP34 will always necessarily\n\u003e \u003e comply with BIP30 (ie coinbases cannot be duplicated after they\n\u003e \u003e include the block height).\n\u003e\n\u003e This is a misinterpretation of BIP30. Duplicate transaction hashes can\n\u003e and will happen and are perfectly valid in Bitcoin. BIP34 does not\n\u003e prevent this.\n\u003e\n\u003e e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/31f43652/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "0f1dfa716f995e0383375eed2381d13c739ab3ac62750adc847454ae6dfa8afd381d76743c8da908efb59f092d2226121b048f5a3a06237357d39687bea76245"
}