On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Yes, that is essentially what BIP 30 did.
It's important to note that bip 30 doesn't prevent duplication, it just prevents the identified really evil outcome of the duplication. There was discussion on doing the height _before_ that, but the realization that the rewrites were a real vulnerability made it urgent and rolling out the height will require time while the bip30 change could be deployed more quickly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
