6

The P2SH feature currently in use was introduced to Bitcoin in 2012 with BIP-0016. It was successfully activated on 2012-04-01 with block 173805.

The BIP turned a particular "hashlock" locking script pattern (OP_HASH160 OP_DATA_20 20-byte-value OP_EQUAL) into a "magical" bytecode pattern which, after authenticating an input's top stack element against the hash then also executes it using Script VM.

The BIP references 1 historical transaction that spent from an output that matched the pattern:

These new rules should only be applied when validating transactions in blocks with timestamps >= 1333238400 (Apr 1 2012) [1]. There are transactions earlier than 1333238400 in the block chain that fail these new validation rules. [2]. Older transactions must be validated under the old rules. (see the Backwards Compatibility section for details).

which made me wonder - are there other, unspent, historical hashlock outputs which may have been made unspendable (if they weren't already) by introduction of the P2SH feature?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7

Even before BIP-0016 activation, there were some outputs that matched the P2SH pattern. Only one of them was spent before activation, and the rest have likely been made unspendable by the BIP-0016 upgrade since spending them would have to satisfy consensus rules not enforced when they were created. Total amount locked in those outputs was 0.044 BTC.

Table 1: Outputs matching the locking script pattern OP_HASH160 OP_DATA_20 value_20 OP_EQUAL, extracted from blocks 0 to 173805.

Block Height TXID Output Index Satoshi Amount Locking Script Status
170052 9C08A4D78931342B37FD5F72900FB9983087E6F46C4A097D8A1F52C74E28EAF6 1 400000 a91419a7d869032368fd1f1e26e5e73a4ad0e474960e87 Spent
170054 B0539A45DE13B3E0403909B8BD1A555B8CBE45FD4E3F3FDA76F3A5F52835C29D 1 400000 a914e8c300c87986efa84c37c0519929019ef86eb5b487 Unspent
170434 D0636198EA55FADEE5B4CCC07C85012DB7D07C2D25790B3AEC770C86617801C0 1 1000000 a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 Unspent
170442 9AB59E2D4BE16C470160EB9B9A9D9799EAF29AF0461AEA131E748659D806FA1A 0 1000000 a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 Unspent
170442 658FC92061F1C4125D5CD1034EB8A1F09BFEBD32A988D855EB7EE63689759A21 0 1000000 a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 Unspent
170556 510B5A44935109E249A704C2900AA9D8303166062E81D2AC852C965B6266DCEE 0 1000000 a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 Unspent
Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    @Schmidty I saw your edit request and link to the BIP. Note that the BIP talks about processing the one historical transaction when validating the blockchain from scratch and only makes reference to that 1 TX. It doesn't talk about these historic UTXOs, and possibility of spending them post-activation.
    – bca-0353f40e
    Nov 21, 2022 at 19:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.