Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments

From: Alex Morcos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:24:49 -0500

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 <
[email-masked]> 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
> > <[email-masked]> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>