6
votes
Accepted
Is it possible for the coinbase transaction in block 164384 to be duplicated in block 1983702?
It would be possible for block 1,983,702 to repeat the coinbase transaction of block 164,384 under these three conditions:
The block does not collect any segwit transactions, otherwise a witness ...
- 73k
5
votes
Accepted
What is the Block 1,983,702 Problem?
Bitcoin assumes a (txid, vout) pair, usually referred to as an "outpoint", is a unique identifier for a UTxO. This assumption did not actually hold in the early years of Bitcoin, since two ...
- 7,327
4
votes
Accepted
Are all transactions, whether SegWit or non-SegWit, part of the commitment in a coinbase transaction?
The wtxids of all transactions are committed to by the witness commitment tree in the coinbase transaction (except the coinbase wtxid itself, as that would be a cyclic dependency). This includes non-...
- 102k
3
votes
Is it possible for the coinbase transaction in block 164384 to be duplicated in block 1983702?
Yes, it is possible for block 1,983,702 to duplicate the coinbase of block 164,384 with the current consensus rules.
Starting with block 1,983,702 the explicit BIP30 check will be re-enabled (see this ...
- 7,327
2
votes
Is it possible for the coinbase transaction in block 164384 to be duplicated in block 1983702?
If the block contains at least one segWit transaction, the coinbase transaction must have a witness commitment as one of its outputs. Therefore, a miner that wants to reuse the coinbase transaction ...
- 632
2
votes
What is the Block 1,983,702 Problem?
My understanding of the problem is:
The coinbase transaction in block 164384 (3aa03753fc) happens to start with OP_PUSHBYTES_3 d6441e which is the value 1983702.
This means there is a very small but ...
- 73
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible