# \[DUBP V12\] RFC approved
**URL:** https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656
**Category:** DUBP
**Created:** [8 December 2019 20:15 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656 "2019-12-08T20:15:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [8 December 2019 20:15 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/1 "2019-12-08T20:15:46Z")
@cgeek @Moul @Inso and any contributor who feels able to review a DUBP protocol RFC.
I have just published [a draft RFC](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10) for version 12 of the DUBP protocol, it includes the following changes:
- rename DUP → DUBP.
- Indicates the possibility of invalid signatures in blocks with version `10` or `11`.
- Remove rule BR\_G106.
- ~~Update rule BR\_G102: Obtaining the REF\_BLOCK by number only (removal of the constraint on hash).~~
- Update transactions local validation: addition of a minimal amount on outputs for transactions in blocks version `12`.
- Update of the expected version for each document.
- Adding local and global validations in the outline.
- Update rule BR\_G27 : fix [**#11**](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/issues/11) (Certifications being replayed are counted twice)
You can see **all** the differences with version 11 here: [create RFC DUBP V12 (!10) · Merge requests · nodes / common / doc · GitLab](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=ed256c43e1313ad3eed91d478ffadbe9268de555)
I need a review by @cgeek at least, and other contributors if possible 🙂
If you validate the changes in this RFC, I would implement them in Duniter, I am setting up my development environment for Duniter 🙂
These changes are the result of the following discussions :
- One internal discussion
- [Interdire les transactions avec source \< 1,00 Ğ1](https://forum.duniter.org/t/interdire-les-transactions-avec-source-1-00-g1/5938)
- ~~[RFC GVA \> TX compatible avec plusieurs branches](https://forum.duniter.org/t/rfc-gva-tx-compatible-avec-plusieurs-branches/6640)~~
- [Ancien membre de retour avec seulement 4 certifications](https://forum.duniter.org/t/ancien-membre-de-retour-avec-seulement-4-certifications/6712)
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [9 December 2019 21:14 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/2 "2019-12-09T21:14:55Z")
On the recommendation of @moul, I separated the changes into several small atomic commits :
- [d2c6dbe3](https://forum.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=d2c6dbe39c51941cc289d5c8d006fdbc67c52570) - Exact copy of DUBP v11
- [816a9f05](https://forum.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=816a9f0541bc8a845e6ffe7f43cd9b71145d31ba) - [ref] rename UCP/DUP -\> DUBP + make implementation agnostic
- [485f842f](https://forum.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=485f842fe19bcfb520415016e6647c103a8d12bb) - Update of the expected version for each document
- [463e72a9](https://forum.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=463e72a99cef29bc362397c86d9a164c332510a7) - Indicates the possibility of invalid signatures in blocks with v10 or 11
- ~~[dc3dbf39](https://forum.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=dc3dbf39db3fb25d04587a1808e60334e4de8b88) - Add min amount for each transaction output & remove rule BR\_G106~~ (reported in v13)
- ~~[4277f34d](https://forum.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=4277f34dbc57e02f00983ef96fdff3c510fc1b5d) - Update rule BR\_G102: Obtain REF\_BLOCK by number only, rm hash constraint~~
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [10 December 2019 19:48 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/3 "2019-12-10T19:48:41Z")
In view of the ongoing discussions on the issue of removing hash control from the blockstamp of transaction documents; this proposal is deleted from DUBP v12.
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [9 January 2020 20:48 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/4 "2020-01-09T20:48:44Z")
A commit has just been added to this RFC to fix a specification flaw :
- [32b1d55e](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/commit/32b1d55e053501403d6cada54a252823b3391892) Update rule BR\_G27 : fix [**#11**](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/issues/11) (Certifications being replayed are counted twice)
---
### Author:  [@cgeek](https://forum.duniter.org/u/cgeek)
#### Post date: [10 January 2020 21:21 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/5 "2020-01-10T21:21:45Z")
Reviewed. For me the formula in [32b1d55e](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/commit/32b1d55e053501403d6cada54a252823b3391892) is not correct currently.
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [10 January 2020 22:30 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/6 "2020-01-10T22:30:13Z")
Thanks for the review 🙂
I’ve addressed all of your remarks except for one for which I have a question.
When I process one, I answer the remark with an “ok”, I do not pass the remark as resolved, it is up to the author of the remark to consider whether it is resolved or not 🙂
An exception: if the remark is not a request for change but just a compliment (example “good point”), I pass it as resolved myself (because all remarks must be resolved to be merged).
---
### Author:  [@cgeek](https://forum.duniter.org/u/cgeek)
#### Post date: [11 January 2020 09:02 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/7 "2020-01-11T09:02:01Z")
Answered.
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [12 January 2020 15:13 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/8 "2020-01-12T15:13:48Z")
> [@elois](#):
>
> - [dc3dbf39](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/merge_requests/10/diffs?commit_id=dc3dbf39db3fb25d04587a1808e60334e4de8b88) - Add min amount for each transaction output & remove rule BR\_G106
This commit is reported in v13.
@cgeek I’ve processed all your returns, can you check every comment you made and mark it as resolved if it is? Or make a clarification if it isn’t?
If all remarks are resolved then you can officially merge this rfc 🙂
---
### Author:  [@cgeek](https://forum.duniter.org/u/cgeek)
#### Post date: [12 January 2020 16:37 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/9 "2020-01-12T16:37:29Z")
Done. 🙂 Thanks for this work.
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [12 January 2020 16:53 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/10 "2020-01-12T16:53:58Z")
Thank for the review 🙂
I have updated the README to bring this RFC to the approved state and create a new MR for DUBP v13, I’m closing this thread.
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [12 January 2020 16:54 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/11 "2020-01-12T16:54:06Z")
---
### Author:  [@elois](https://forum.duniter.org/u/elois)
#### Post date: [28 January 2020 21:24 UTC](https://forum.duniter.org/t/dubp-v12-rfc-approved/6656/12 "2020-01-28T21:24:44Z")
DUBP v12 has been implemented in the duniter software:
- Update rule BR\_G27 : fix [**#11**](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/common/doc/issues/11) (Certifications being replayed are counted twice)
> **[Merge branch 'fix/1394/4-certs-only' into 1.7 (55d78704) · Commits · nodes /...](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/typescript/duniter/-/commit/55d787049887f0adaf42262bb5f9b840d953d8b3)**
>
> Crypto-currency software to operate Ğ1 libre currency
- Upgrade tweetnacl : fix [**#1390**](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/typescript/duniter/issues/1390) ( Duniter uses a buggy version of TweetNaCl)
> **[Merge branch '1390-tweetnacl' into '1.7' (c095370f) · Commits · nodes /...](https://git.duniter.org/nodes/typescript/duniter/-/commit/c095370ff14ae3d8c2766bb7fdd12585d450da70)**
>
> Resolve "Duniter uses a buggy version of TweetNaCl" See merge request nodes/typescript/duniter!1283
A new version of Duniter with these changes will be released soon.