Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as effective to use either:
1) the genesis block hash, or 2) the block hash of the first block in a fork? Every block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that chain, so there's no need to incorporate the genesis block hash again. On Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 1:27 am, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify > chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow > identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis > block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that > this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build > systems redundantly. > > I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs > through: > > 1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or > 2) a hash of the genesis block hash, concatenated with block hash(es) of > fork point(s) for a fork chain > > This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc > while preserving a fixed length chain identifier. > > If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they > would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being > actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain. > > Thoughts? _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
