{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-11\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e This is basically what I meant by\n\u003e\n\u003e struct hashRootStruct\n\u003e {\n\u003e uint256 hashMerkleRoot;\n\u003e uint256 hashWitnessesRoot;\n\u003e uint256 hashextendedHeader;\n\u003e }\n\u003e\n\u003e but my design doesn't calculate other_root as it appears in your tree (is\n\u003e not necessary).\n\u003e\n\u003e It is necessary to maintain compatibility with SPV nodes/wallets.\n\nAny code that just checks merkle paths up into the block header would have\nto change if the structure of the merkle tree changed to be three-headed at\nthe top.\n\nIf it remains a binary tree, then it doesn't need to change at all-- the\ncode that produces the merkle paths will just send a path that is one step\ndeeper.\n\nPlus, it's just weird to have a merkle tree that isn't a binary tree.....\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151211/2f95a032/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}