📅 Original date posted:2017-04-04
📝 Original message:Can you tell me where it is enforced?
The only place I found was here;
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1793
which doesn’t enforce it, all that code does is check that the txid is
unknown or fully spent.
And since the below idea from Russel would change the txid, it would seem no
full client would reject this.
Maybe its in a BIP, but I can’t find it in the code.
On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 16:59:12 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
> It is a consensus rule
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:39:13 CEST Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Someone told me a while back that it would be more natural if we move
> >> the
> >>
> >> nHeight from the coinbase script to the coinbase locktime. Have you
> >> considered doing this?
> >
> > That change would not be a consensus change and thus free to make any
> > day.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 17:58:59
in reply to nevent1q…9rep
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Published at
2023-06-07 17:58:59Event JSON
{
"id": "29926429bf567fddbf334124fb4e600ecb344e6d47004c814284dbaef560e968",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686160739,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed5438e960e3e46c3ecdd5abd50fbc20d36320b38962234d04c80268a7df621d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d7d92d4d1a805295a75a588a64bd1cae7176d77a1f549e8267365d6d3b7714c6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"78cadd65bb98ff2b50ae825fa100352d7f102e41ec5caad2e4d2e99e00df1394"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-04\n📝 Original message:Can you tell me where it is enforced?\n\nThe only place I found was here;\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1793\n\nwhich doesn’t enforce it, all that code does is check that the txid is \nunknown or fully spent.\nAnd since the below idea from Russel would change the txid, it would seem no \nfull client would reject this.\n\nMaybe its in a BIP, but I can’t find it in the code.\n\nOn Tuesday, 4 April 2017 16:59:12 CEST James Hilliard wrote:\n\u003e It is a consensus rule\n\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki\n\u003e \n\u003e On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:39:13 CEST Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Someone told me a while back that it would be more natural if we move\n\u003e \u003e\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \n\u003e \u003e\u003e nHeight from the coinbase script to the coinbase locktime. Have you\n\u003e \u003e\u003e considered doing this?\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e That change would not be a consensus change and thus free to make any\n\u003e \u003e day.\n\n\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel",
"sig": "f90450ba4c2d6c949614a6da3f30818140139f402c40b6726aeaaddfd0afca1ea3a7554d70f140b7b0556e6387b14a97a9acac9d1c0270a8f3e207b3e432fd5b"
}