Timeline for What prevents anyone from spending utxos from a native segwit address?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 2018 at 17:56 | vote | accept | Errol | ||
| Mar 29, 2018 at 7:04 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille | And even if that miner ran with modified software that somehow treats such a transaction as valid, all that would happen is that the miner creates a block that every other miner and almost every other node in the world will consider invalid, and ignore. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 3:07 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | @Errol: I don't understand what you mean. A miner can accept a non-standard transaction only if it is still valid according to that miner's understanding of the consensus rules. For instance, a miner could accept an OP_RETURN transaction with more than 83 bytes of payload; it is nonstandard but still valid. But they can't accept a transaction with an invalid signature, or which spends a nonexistent utxo. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 3:02 | comment | added | Errol | But wouldn't a transaction like that be seen as non standard so some miners might accept it? | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 2:55 | history | answered | Nate Eldredge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |