Why was an insecure merkle tree implementation chosen?












4















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.










share|improve this question





























    4















    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.










    share|improve this question



























      4












      4








      4








      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.










      share|improve this question
















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 13 '18 at 12:22







      Caleb James DeLisle

















      asked Nov 13 '18 at 12:16









      Caleb James DeLisleCaleb James DeLisle

      212




      212






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8














          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.






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "308"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            8














            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.






            share|improve this answer




























              8














              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.






              share|improve this answer


























                8












                8








                8







                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.






                share|improve this answer













                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.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Nov 13 '18 at 13:56









                Raghav SoodRaghav Sood

                7,11811127




                7,11811127






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    Post-Redirect-Get with Spring WebFlux and Thymeleaf

                    Xamarin.form Move up view when keyboard appear

                    JBPM : POST request for execute process go wrong