Thanks for the responses Antoine.<br /><br />&gt;  As discussed here it would let node implementations cache block failures at an earlier stage of validation. Not a large gain, but still nice to have.<br /><br />It is not clear to me how determining the coinbase size can be done at an earlier stage of validation than detection of the non-null coinbase. The former requires parsing the coinbase to determine its size, the latter requires parsing it to know if the point is null. Both of these can be performed as early as immediately following the socket read.<br /><br />size check<br /><br />(1) requires new consensus rule: 64 byte transactions (or coinbases?) are invalid.<br />(2) creates a consensus "seam"  (complexity) in txs, where &lt; 64 bytes and &gt; 64 bytes are potentially valid.<br />(3) can be limited to reading/skipping header (80 bytes) plus parsing 0 - 65 coinbase bytes.<br /><br />point check<br /><br />(1) requires no change.<br />(2) creates no consensus seam.<br />(3) can be limited to reading/skipping header (80 bytes) plus parsing 6 - 43 coinbase bytes.<br /><br />Not only is this not a large (performance) gain, it's not one at all.<br /><br />&gt; It would also avoid a large footgun for anyone implementing a software verifying an SPV proof verifier and not knowing the intricacies of the protocol...<br /><br />It seems to me that introducing an arbitrary tx size validity may create more potential implementation bugs than it resolves. And certainly anyone implementing such a verifier must know many intricacies of the protocol. This does not remove one, it introduces another - as there is not only a bifurcation around tx size but one around the question of whether this rule is active.<br /> <br />&gt; Finally, it would get rid of a large footgun in general. <br /><br />I do not see this. I see a very ugly perpetual seam which will likely result in unexpected complexities over time.<br /><br />&gt; Certainly, unique block hashes would be a useful property for Bitcoin to have. It's not far-fetched to expect current or future Bitcoin-related software to rely on this.<br /><br />This does not produce unmalleable block hashes. Duplicate tx hash malleation remains in either case, to the same effect. Without a resolution to both issues this is an empty promise.<br /><br />The only possible benefit that I can see here is the possible very small bandwidth savings pertaining to SPV proofs. I would have a very hard time justifying adding any consensus rule to achieve only that result.<br /><br />Best,<br />Eric<br /><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/be78e733-6e9f-4f4e-8dc2-67b79ddbf677n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/be78e733-6e9f-4f4e-8dc2-67b79ddbf677n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />