1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
|
Return-Path: <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6F3DD44
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:15:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net
(resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.35])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FF20152
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:15:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.107])
by resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id ALFi1r0022Ka2Q501LFiDJ; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:15:42 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0])
by resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id ALFh1r00D4eLRLv01LFhMb; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:15:42 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: gladoscc <admin@glados.cc>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:15:40 -0400
Message-ID: <2081350.pl7B3yspcG@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL7-sS1aMqrUzMEbiQUWuxFtVHGv+-is7-BeAuje3rfQs_-JeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL7-sS2mrBqM7w5T8mRBFvVrCaHy1zT1YsgrHUxRBqdTFqczow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL7-sS3CaHvZxUb-Q6HagHYufYnko_T4TBoFhd31rr5OxaiAEw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL7-sS1aMqrUzMEbiQUWuxFtVHGv+-is7-BeAuje3rfQs_-JeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net;
s=q20140121; t=1440792942;
bh=2EDHLZT4jAvS6N19jz/uhUF5bGJOqwRqpgzxzJ0Ekdo=;
h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
Content-Type;
b=AZXzK7WMPs4NTP4ahYy9ZHDIiOfyyv3Zc/EWBCoZ42KHYDcnidGInLThmF3he3Fys
H2TXN4LP11zxAt2LU2vI4qT255nx1aW1JgsC6RYgFRivZVJsyGhV95zHumaE3yIcLG
5I8eBRZ0jF/JRYAB7WAOgOzRix/4ZzaEZc8v9QFKkQbdJEPYw1KDO2Ys8zaHpQUnc1
LIgM6U6P3fhqn/v+osbTxeflGaqs0Y1GXm11rvkAoaLwzjM2TGx8f+x0UHEcgufoP/
3DCiaiipMw/5s8A/t5Rk9llLDcTZMsexoILsBPGkmMcnkAH9nRa8q1MDOCxogtikAS
jJLCnKloZhO0A==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Uniquely identifying forked chains
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:15:44 -0000
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?
|
