On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab.com> wrote:
> The proposal is simple, and it's a small change for miners, I imagine.
>
> My question is: why?
>
> I worry about stuffing too many requirements on the coinbase. I suppose
> the coinbase is easily extendible if we run out of bytes, but I think I'd
> like to see some more discussion / good / bad type cases for making this
> change. What do we get over just the prev_hash by doing this?

With the existing setup (sans height in coinbase), you might not have
unique transactions, with all that entails.

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?

Mark