Why was an insecure merkle tree implementation chosen?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
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







share|improve this question









New contributor




Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    up vote
    3
    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







    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      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







      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      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






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday





















      New contributor




      Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked yesterday









      Caleb James DeLisle

      162




      162




      New contributor




      Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          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.






          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',
            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
            );



            );






            Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









             

            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

















            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.






            share|improve this answer
























              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.






              share|improve this answer






















                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.






                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 yesterday









                Raghav Sood

                6,33411027




                6,33411027




















                    Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded


















                    Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                    Caleb James DeLisle is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                     


                    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
































































                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this question asked Sep 26 at 0:12 ToanLuong 49 9 add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this questi...
                    Read more

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP 1 How can I extract a single band from multi-band raster in QGIS? I have an remote sensed image which has 6 bands (including NDVI band), I want to display each band separately, but have no idea how to do. I have seen some questions similar here but none worked for me. The original image (has 6 bands) is: I want to display the band 6 which should be like this: But I tried gdal_translate, and couldn't get the correct result. What I have got is: qgis raster multi-band share | improve this question edited Mar 5 at 0:53 Summer asked Mar 4 at 6:42 Summer Summer 23 6 Is this any help gis.stackexchange.com/questions/220658/… ? if not gis.stackexchange.com/questions/62133/… might help. – Michael Stimson Mar 4 at 6:46 Thanks for answering but when I used gdal_translate, qgis showed that 'Error 4: Kayena.tif: No such file or directory". Would you know how to fi...
                    Read more

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite I am currently learning reverse engineering and am studying the flags register. I had in my mind that rflags was just another name for one of the 16 general purpose registers, for example rax or rbx . But it looks like rflags is actually an additional register. So that makes 17 registers in total... how many more could there be? I have spent at least an hour on this and found numerous different answers. The best answer so far is this, which says that there are 40 registers in total. 16 General Purpose Registers 2 Status Registers 6 Code Segment Registers 16 SSE Registers 8 FPU/MMX Registers But if I add that up, I get 48. Could anybody provide an official answer on how many registers an x86_64 CPU has (e.g. an Intel i7). Additionally, I have seen references to 'hardware' and 'architectural' registers. What are those registers and how many are there? register x86-64 share | improve this...
                    Read more