📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/b8912894/attachment.sig>;
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 17:54:21
in reply to nevent1q…5r0c
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:21Event JSON
{
"id": "2e03322d8705ce6c41f7a7071ef7dd10736c319ba6da17c51c4f968f248c71fa",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686160461,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50cde70d11f9c69cc787e52010ba0256918f920ad1f9811ad6566a1543ec1282",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a4dd0992e1504e9713be927e14a48b08b494e1e95e2f9f05b3442e901f6c1edf",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16\n📝 Original message:On 11/16/2016 03:58 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount of time\n\u003e\u003e had passed.\n\u003e\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392\n\u003e \n\u003e This is not really the same. BIP30 is not validated after BIP34 is\n\u003e active because blocks complying with BIP34 will always necessarily\n\u003e comply with BIP30 (ie coinbases cannot be duplicated after they\n\u003e include the block height).\n\nThis is a misinterpretation of BIP30. Duplicate transaction hashes can\nand will happen and are perfectly valid in Bitcoin. BIP34 does not\nprevent this.\n\ne\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/b8912894/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "d3cdd0ef167dd05c9955f2523fc89417fb9b3df54aba6cb4a40614bc9ef0014306feafe460613a44e7e0c68336842eb2093c81ca6735d94b49425f7806d2a290"
}