Why was an insecure merkle tree implementation chosen?
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
At risk of creating a "lets discuss politics" question, let me clarify that what I want to know is whether there is a known benefit to Satoshi's "duplicate the last hash" merkle tree implementation over the seemingly obvious "append zeros".
For those who don't know, the bitcoin merkle tree algorithm allows blocks to be mutated if a transaction can be duplicated which lead to CSV-2012-2459.
security protocol merkle-tree
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
At risk of creating a "lets discuss politics" question, let me clarify that what I want to know is whether there is a known benefit to Satoshi's "duplicate the last hash" merkle tree implementation over the seemingly obvious "append zeros".
For those who don't know, the bitcoin merkle tree algorithm allows blocks to be mutated if a transaction can be duplicated which lead to CSV-2012-2459.
security protocol merkle-tree
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
At risk of creating a "lets discuss politics" question, let me clarify that what I want to know is whether there is a known benefit to Satoshi's "duplicate the last hash" merkle tree implementation over the seemingly obvious "append zeros".
For those who don't know, the bitcoin merkle tree algorithm allows blocks to be mutated if a transaction can be duplicated which lead to CSV-2012-2459.
security protocol merkle-tree
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
At risk of creating a "lets discuss politics" question, let me clarify that what I want to know is whether there is a known benefit to Satoshi's "duplicate the last hash" merkle tree implementation over the seemingly obvious "append zeros".
For those who don't know, the bitcoin merkle tree algorithm allows blocks to be mutated if a transaction can be duplicated which lead to CSV-2012-2459.
security protocol merkle-tree
security protocol merkle-tree
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
edited Nov 13 at 12:22
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
asked Nov 13 at 12:16
Caleb James DeLisle
212
212
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
As with many things in Bitcoin, it is likely simply because it worked well enough, and such an attack was not immediately obvious.
Several of the choices made in the early days of Bitcoin don't have a full justification behind them, and were simply made because it worked at the time without any major, obvious shortcomings. This is one such scenario, as far as I'm aware.
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
As with many things in Bitcoin, it is likely simply because it worked well enough, and such an attack was not immediately obvious.
Several of the choices made in the early days of Bitcoin don't have a full justification behind them, and were simply made because it worked at the time without any major, obvious shortcomings. This is one such scenario, as far as I'm aware.
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
As with many things in Bitcoin, it is likely simply because it worked well enough, and such an attack was not immediately obvious.
Several of the choices made in the early days of Bitcoin don't have a full justification behind them, and were simply made because it worked at the time without any major, obvious shortcomings. This is one such scenario, as far as I'm aware.
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
As with many things in Bitcoin, it is likely simply because it worked well enough, and such an attack was not immediately obvious.
Several of the choices made in the early days of Bitcoin don't have a full justification behind them, and were simply made because it worked at the time without any major, obvious shortcomings. This is one such scenario, as far as I'm aware.
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
As with many things in Bitcoin, it is likely simply because it worked well enough, and such an attack was not immediately obvious.
Several of the choices made in the early days of Bitcoin don't have a full justification behind them, and were simply made because it worked at the time without any major, obvious shortcomings. This is one such scenario, as far as I'm aware.
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
answered Nov 13 at 13:56
Raghav Sood
6,64911127
6,64911127
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f80973%2fwhy-was-an-insecure-merkle-tree-implementation-chosen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
