On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgar...@exmulti.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes <pe...@coinlab.com> wrote:
> > The proposal is simple, and it's a small change for miners, I imagine.
> >
> > My question is: why?
> >
> > I worry about stuffing too many requirements on the coinbase. I suppose
> > the coinbase is easily extendible if we run out of bytes, but I think I'd
> > like to see some more discussion / good / bad type cases for making this
> > change. What do we get over just the prev_hash by doing this?
>
> With the existing setup (sans height in coinbase), you might not have
> unique transactions, with all that entails.
>
But those issues are solvable through other, non-backwards incompatible
means. For example, mandate that a <transaction hash, output index> refers
to the first such pair that is not already spent. No?
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
