present. That
way you can carry on assuming that all transaction hashes are unique, and
enforce that rule over the entire blockchain.
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:18:22 +0200
From: m...@plan99.net
To: m...@ricmoo.com
CC: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Self
On Sunday, 13 July 2014, at 7:32 pm, Richard Moore wrote:
> P.S. If it is valid, another question; what would happen if a transaction was
> self-referencing? I realize it would be very difficult to find one, but if I
> could find a transaction X whose input was X and had an output Y, would Y be
Conceptually all transactions in the block chain lie on a single timeline.
The fact that we quantise that timeline into blocks is in many ways neither
here nor there - it's still a strict line.
What *can* happen and you must be aware of is duplicated transactions.
Satoshi sort of assumed this coul
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> I believe tx have to be ordered sequentially within a block. Also
> since a tx is referenced by it's hash, it's practically impossible to
> make a self referential tx.
Correct. A TX will not reference a later TX in the same block (or itsel
I believe tx have to be ordered sequentially within a block. Also
since a tx is referenced by it's hash, it's practically impossible to
make a self referential tx.
Aaron Voisine
breadwallet.com
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Richard Moore wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm working on the UTXO database
Hey all,
I'm working on the UTXO database for my Python implementation of bitcoind and
have found a situation I did not realize was valid, but since it seems to be,
had a quick question.
If you look at block #546 the 4th transaction's first input uses its own
block's 3rd transaction as an inpu
6 matches
Mail list logo
