Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

Tom, It's clear that you have some rather large gaps in your knowledge of Bitcoin, its rules, implementation and game theory. I highly encourage you spend some time learning more about these things before continuing posting here. https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/ is a good place to st

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

I notice you didn’t read the actual full line :) If you click on it, you’ll notice at the end of the line it says; “chainparams.GetConsensus().BIP34Hash” so, this is about BIP34. On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 17:44:40 CEST Greg Sanders wrote: > That's BIP30, he linked BIP34: > https://github.com/bit

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

That's BIP30, he linked BIP34: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L3004 On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Can you tell me where it is enforced? > > The only place I found was here; > https:/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

Can you tell me where it is enforced? The only place I found was here; https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1793 which doesn’t enforce it, all that code does is check that the txid is unknown or fully spent. And since the below idea from Russel would change the txid

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

It is a consensus rule https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:39:13 CEST Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Someone told me a while back that it would be more natural

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

On Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:39:13 CEST Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Someone told me a while back that it would be more natural if we move the > nHeight from the coinbase script to the coinbase locktime. Have you > considered doing this? That change would not be a consensus change an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

> On 3 Apr 2017, at 04:39, Russell O'Connor wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > • the witness of the first input of the coinbase transaction MUST > have exactly one stack item (the "extended

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > • the witness of the first input of the coinbase transaction MUST > have exactly one stack item (the "extended header"), with the following > data: > • bytes 0 to 3

[bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Extended block header hardfork

This is the first of a series of BIPs describing my “spoonnet” experimental hardfork. Recently many bitcoin businesses expressed their requirements for supporting a hardfork proposal. While it is proven to be extremely difficult to obtain community-wide consensus, spoonnet fulfills all the commo