Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: >> But those issues are solvable through other, non-backwards incompatible >> means. For example, mandate that a refers >> to the first such pair that is not already spent. No? > > Yes, that is essentially what BIP 30 did. It's important to n

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Amir Taaki
Development Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes wrote: >> The proposal is simple, and it's a small change for miners

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Gavin Andresen
> But those issues are solvable through other, non-backwards incompatible > means. For example, mandate that a refers > to the first such pair that is not already spent. No? Yes, that is essentially what BIP 30 did. We want to do this also, partly for "belt and suspenders" security but mostly fo

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Mark Friedenbach
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes 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 > >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Peter Vessenes
So, 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 cas

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Peter Vessenes
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes 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 > >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Jeff Garzik
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes 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 thi

[Bitcoin-development] BIP 34: Block v2, Height in Coinbase

2012-07-06 Thread Jeff Garzik
Please review and comment... Block v2, Height in Coinbase https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0034 BIP: 34 Title: Block v2, Height in Coinbase Author: Gavin Andresen Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2012-07-06 Abstract Bitcoin blocks and transactions are versioned binary str