<p>Even before BIP-0016 activation, there were some outputs that matched the P2SH pattern.
Only one of them was spent before activation, and the rest have likely been made unspendable by the BIP-0016 upgrade since spending them would have to satisfy consensus rules not enforced when they were created.
Total amount locked in those outputs was 0.044 BTC.</p>
<p>Table 1: Outputs matching the locking script pattern <code>OP_HASH160 OP_DATA_20 value_20 OP_EQUAL</code>, extracted from blocks 0 to 173805.</p>
<div class="s-table-container">
<table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Block Height</th>
<th>TXID</th>
<th>Output Index</th>
<th>Satoshi Amount</th>
<th>Locking Script</th>
<th>Status</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>170052</td>
<td>9C08A4D78931342B37FD5F72900FB9983087E6F46C4A097D8A1F52C74E28EAF6</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>400000</td>
<td>a91419a7d869032368fd1f1e26e5e73a4ad0e474960e87</td>
<td>Spent</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>170054</td>
<td>B0539A45DE13B3E0403909B8BD1A555B8CBE45FD4E3F3FDA76F3A5F52835C29D</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>400000</td>
<td>a914e8c300c87986efa84c37c0519929019ef86eb5b487</td>
<td>Unspent</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>170434</td>
<td>D0636198EA55FADEE5B4CCC07C85012DB7D07C2D25790B3AEC770C86617801C0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1000000</td>
<td>a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87</td>
<td>Unspent</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>170442</td>
<td>9AB59E2D4BE16C470160EB9B9A9D9799EAF29AF0461AEA131E748659D806FA1A</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1000000</td>
<td>a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87</td>
<td>Unspent</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>170442</td>
<td>658FC92061F1C4125D5CD1034EB8A1F09BFEBD32A988D855EB7EE63689759A21</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1000000</td>
<td>a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87</td>
<td>Unspent</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>170556</td>
<td>510B5A44935109E249A704C2900AA9D8303166062E81D2AC852C965B6266DCEE</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1000000</td>
<td>a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87</td>
<td>Unspent</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-21T19:55:25.453Z
@Schmidty I saw your edit request and link to the BIP. Note that the BIP talks about processing the one historical transaction when validating the blockchain from scratch and only makes reference to that 1 TX. It doesn't talk about these historic UTXOs, and possibility of spending them post-activation.
bca-0353f40e
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-01T11:54:12.487Z
2022-11-01T15:30:43.510Z
2022-11-01T15:30:43.510Z
bca-0353f40e
<p>The P2SH feature currently in use was introduced to Bitcoin in 2012 with <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki" rel="noreferrer">BIP-0016</a>.
It was successfully activated on 2012-04-01 with block 173805.</p>
<p>The BIP turned a particular &quot;hashlock&quot; locking script pattern (<code>OP_HASH160 OP_DATA_20 20-byte-value OP_EQUAL</code>) into a &quot;magical&quot; bytecode pattern which, after authenticating an input's top stack element against the hash then also executes it using Script VM.</p>
<p>The BIP references 1 historical transaction that spent from an output that matched the pattern:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>These new rules should only be applied when validating transactions in blocks with timestamps &gt;= 1333238400 (Apr 1 2012) [1]. There are transactions earlier than 1333238400 in the block chain that fail these new validation rules. [2]. Older transactions must be validated under the old rules. (see the Backwards Compatibility section for details).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>which made me wonder - are there other, unspent, historical hashlock outputs which may have been made unspendable (if they weren't already) by introduction of the P2SH feature?</p>

<p2sh><soft-fork>
Did the P2SH BIP-0016 make some Bitcoin unspendable?
bca-0353f40e
# Did the P2SH BIP-0016 make some Bitcoin unspendable?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-11-01)

The P2SH feature currently in use was introduced to Bitcoin in 2012 with [BIP-0016](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki).
It was successfully activated on 2012-04-01 with block 173805.

The BIP turned a particular "hashlock" locking script pattern (`OP_HASH160 OP_DATA_20 20-byte-value OP_EQUAL`) into a "magical" bytecode pattern which, after authenticating an input's top stack element against the hash then also executes it using Script VM.

The BIP references 1 historical transaction that spent from an output that matched the pattern:

> These new rules should only be applied when validating transactions in blocks with timestamps >= 1333238400 (Apr 1 2012) [1]. There are transactions earlier than 1333238400 in the block chain that fail these new validation rules. [2]. Older transactions must be validated under the old rules. (see the Backwards Compatibility section for details).

which made me wonder - are there other, unspent, historical hashlock outputs which may have been made unspendable (if they weren't already) by introduction of the P2SH feature?

**Tags:** p2sh, soft-fork


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-11-01. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

Even before BIP-0016 activation, there were some outputs that matched the P2SH pattern.
Only one of them was spent before activation, and the rest have likely been made unspendable by the BIP-0016 upgrade since spending them would have to satisfy consensus rules not enforced when they were created.
Total amount locked in those outputs was 0.044 BTC.

Table 1: Outputs matching the locking script pattern `OP_HASH160 OP_DATA_20 value_20 OP_EQUAL`, extracted from blocks 0 to 173805.

| Block Height | TXID | Output Index | Satoshi Amount | Locking Script | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 170052 | 9C08A4D78931342B37FD5F72900FB9983087E6F46C4A097D8A1F52C74E28EAF6 | 1 | 400000 | a91419a7d869032368fd1f1e26e5e73a4ad0e474960e87 | Spent |
| 170054 | B0539A45DE13B3E0403909B8BD1A555B8CBE45FD4E3F3FDA76F3A5F52835C29D | 1 | 400000 | a914e8c300c87986efa84c37c0519929019ef86eb5b487 | Unspent |
| 170434 | D0636198EA55FADEE5B4CCC07C85012DB7D07C2D25790B3AEC770C86617801C0 | 1 | 1000000 | a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 | Unspent |
| 170442 | 9AB59E2D4BE16C470160EB9B9A9D9799EAF29AF0461AEA131E748659D806FA1A | 0 | 1000000 | a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 | Unspent |
| 170442 | 658FC92061F1C4125D5CD1034EB8A1F09BFEBD32A988D855EB7EE63689759A21 | 0 | 1000000 | a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 | Unspent |
| 170556 | 510B5A44935109E249A704C2900AA9D8303166062E81D2AC852C965B6266DCEE | 0 | 1000000 | a91484b8ee2ee2970e4a5c3a18e73a9e251ad5c1df1c87 | Unspent |

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @Schmidty I saw your edit request and link to the BIP. Note that the BIP talks about processing the one historical transaction when validating the blockchain from scratch and only makes reference to that 1 TX. It doesn't talk about these historic UTXOs, and possibility of spending them post-activation.  

---

