Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2024, 11:03:57 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: I thought trxid is unique  (Read 1989 times)
poblico (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 09:01:57 PM
 #1

But then I came across this https://blockchain.info/tx/d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599

I see two reward blocks, so the same transaction id exists in two different blocks.
The output is to the same address and that address has only 1 input so it clearly is the same transaction but it was included in two blocks.

Why is that?
tacotime
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005



View Profile
February 05, 2015, 09:06:58 PM
 #2

see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki

Code:
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns
jbrnt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 05, 2015, 09:14:56 PM
Last edit: February 05, 2015, 10:47:10 PM by jbrnt
 #3

This is weird. I know duplicate txid is possible. I have no idea block explorers find it hard to interpret:

I don't trust blockchain.info as much as before. I use another explorer to check. Blockr.io shows only one transaction with that txid but shows 100btc, transactions of 50btc each in the address?

http://btc.blockr.io/tx/info/d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599
http://btc.blockr.io/address/info/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom

Blockchain.info only shows 50btc in the address:
https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom
johoe
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217
Merit: 259


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 10:06:49 PM
 #4

Blockchain.info only shows 50btc in the address:
https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom

In some sense Blockchain.info is right.  Only one of the two transactions is spendable.  To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks.

Donations to 1CF62UFWXiKqFUmgQMUby9DpEW5LXjypU3
micaman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 345
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 11:45:48 PM
 #5

Blockchain.info only shows 50btc in the address:
https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom

In some sense Blockchain.info is right.  Only one of the two transactions is spendable.  To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks.

So who did this just "ignored" 50 deserved coins by overwritting previous unspent ones?
domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1136
Merit: 1170


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2015, 06:45:46 AM
 #6

Blockchain.info only shows 50btc in the address:
https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom

In some sense Blockchain.info is right.  Only one of the two transactions is spendable.  To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks.

So who did this just "ignored" 50 deserved coins by overwritting previous unspent ones?
Yes, exactly.  That was presumably a bug in their mining setup (and not done intentionally).

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 4284
Merit: 8816



View Profile WWW
February 06, 2015, 07:03:00 AM
 #7

I don't trust blockchain.info as much as before.
BC.i frequently shows outright incorrect information. Some of it is because some of the data they show is "unphysical" e.g. it's some synthesis of data in the blockchain, and the actual operation of the system is not well matched to the model the site presents, so the corner cases produce weird results.  E.g. there was (and still is? unsure) a bunch of "addresses" showing negative "balances". It's less surprising to see errors like that when you understand that there is nothing really like an "address balance" in the Bitcoin system itself.
newIndia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1052


View Profile
February 06, 2015, 09:29:11 AM
 #8

I don't trust blockchain.info as much as before.
BC.i frequently shows outright incorrect information. Some of it is because some of the data they show is "unphysical" e.g. it's some synthesis of data in the blockchain, and the actual operation of the system is not well matched to the model the site presents, so the corner cases produce weird results.  E.g. there was (and still is? unsure) a bunch of "addresses" showing negative "balances". It's less surprising to see errors like that when you understand that there is nothing really like an "address balance" in the Bitcoin system itself.

I see this statement time and again. What I understand that an address has its input & output transactions. So, by deducting output transaction balance from input transactions, what we get is address balance. True, it is a derived parameter, but it is there... is not it ?

amaclin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019


View Profile
February 06, 2015, 10:23:05 AM
 #9

Quote
I see this statement time and again. What I understand that an address has its input & output transactions.
Wrong.

Quote
So, by deducting output transaction balance from input transactions, what we get is address balance. True, it is a derived parameter, but it is there... is not it ?

There are no "addresses" in raw bitcoin protocol.
There are "outputs" and "output scripts".

The trivial example is escrow output:
You sent some funds to an escrow script of Alice, Bob and Charley. Each two of them (2-of-3) can decide what to do with these funds.
OK, but what is the balance of you, Alice, Bod and Charley after you sent your funds? Who is an owner?

Sorry, I can not explain it in good English.
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1416


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2015, 06:02:38 PM
 #10

it wasn't initially the case for coinbase transactions.
now in blocks version 2 they must be unique, but the transactions you're talking about are from blocks version 1.
back then it was still possible for two coinbase transactions to have the same id.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
hhanh00
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 467
Merit: 267


View Profile
February 06, 2015, 07:24:27 PM
 #11

I don't trust blockchain.info as much as before.
BC.i frequently shows outright incorrect information. Some of it is because some of the data they show is "unphysical" e.g. it's some synthesis of data in the blockchain, and the actual operation of the system is not well matched to the model the site presents, so the corner cases produce weird results.  E.g. there was (and still is? unsure) a bunch of "addresses" showing negative "balances". It's less surprising to see errors like that when you understand that there is nothing really like an "address balance" in the Bitcoin system itself.

I see this statement time and again. What I understand that an address has its input & output transactions. So, by deducting output transaction balance from input transactions, what we get is address balance. True, it is a derived parameter, but it is there... is not it ?

True, but blockchain.info is notorious for doing the calculation poorly, i.e. including double spends, orphaned blocks, ignoring address versions, etc.

jbrnt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 03:01:41 AM
 #12

it wasn't initially the case for coinbase transactions.
now in blocks version 2 they must be unique, but the transactions you're talking about are from blocks version 1.
back then it was still possible for two coinbase transactions to have the same id.

The transaction in question is from 2010, that explains it. Found out version 2 was introduced in September 2012. Thanks for the insight.
poblico (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 11:04:11 PM
 #13

I came across this with a Blockchain sync tool I am working on so this data exists on the blockchain its not a blockchain.info bad data mapping.

I see that in the early versions of the protocol this was possible so make sense as its an old transaction.

Thanks for the reply and help.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!