On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Christian Decker <
decker.christ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Stephen, I hadn't thought about BIP 34 and we need to address this
> in both proposals. If we can avoid it I'd like not to have one
> transaction hashed one way and other transactions in another way.
>
The normalized TXID cannot depend on height for other transactions.
Otherwise, it gets mutated when been added to the chain, depending on
height.
An option would be that the height is included in the scriptSig for all
transactions, but for non-coinbase transctions, the height used is zero.
I think if height has to be an input into the normalized txid function, the
specifics of inclusion don't matter.
The previous txid for coinbases are required to be all zeros, so the
normalized txid could be to add the height to the txids of all inputs.
Again, non-coinbase transactions would have heights of zero.
> Is there a specific reason why that was not chosen at the time?
>
I assumed that since the scriptSig in the coinbase is specifically intended
to be "random" bytes/extra nonce, so putting a restriction on it was
guaranteed to be backward compatible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
