<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1fvuxqdqg7klqqgy3yy8gdxjv4phu92sll5y8zqm2qe5qdrhxymhqf3vq7f</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1fvuxqdqg7klqqgy3yy8gdxjv4phu92sll5y8zqm2qe5qdrhxymhqf3vq7f</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2016-05-11&#xA;📝 Original message:On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner &lt;&#xA;sergio.d.lerner at gmail.com&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; You can find it here:&#xA;&gt; https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of the&#xA;&gt; second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows increased nonce space in the&#xA;&gt; first 64 bytes.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; My mistake here. I didn&#39;t recalled correctly my own idea. The idea is to&#xA;include in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first chunk, not&#xA;the opposite.&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160511/b0e9c92b/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>