Skip to content
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
LIP: 0019
Title: Use full SHA-256 hash of transaction as transactionID
Author: Andreas Kendziorra <>
Status: Active
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2019-09-06
Updated: 2021-12-01


This LIP proposes to use the full SHA-256 hash of a transaction as the transactionID to avoid potential collisions of transactionIDs.


This LIP is licensed under the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal.


The length of the currently used transactionIDs is rather short considering the potential number of transactions that could get included in the Lisk blockchain in the next years. The probability of having collisions in the upcoming years is therefore non negligible. A collision would result in a rejected transaction due to the uniqueness requirement for transactionIDs. Moreover, it would disallow to uniquely identify a transaction from the set of all transactions (transactions included in the blockchain and rejected transactions). For this reason, we propose to use a length that implies a negligible probability of collisions.



The currently used transactionIDs have a length of 64 bits. The expected value for the number of transactions after which there is a collision of transactionIDs is ~232. The proposed changes regarding the block size will allow up to 128 transactions per block (assuming the current size of transaction objects). If every block contains 128 transactions, a collision is expected after approximately 11 years.

We propose to use a length of 256 bits. This reduces the probability for a transactionID collision sufficiently. Assuming that each block contains 128 transactions, the probability of having a collision within the next 50 years is below 10-56 (the probability of a collision after n transactions can be approximated by 1-exp(-n2/(2*2256))).


On the protocol level, the new 256-bit transactionID has to be used. For the user interfaces, the old transactionID should still be supported. That means, clients like Lisk Desktop should be able to request transactions via http at least from some nodes with the old transactionID. These nodes need to maintain a mapping from the old transactionIDs to the new ones, e.g., as a database table.

TransactionID Uniqueness in Transaction Validation

Since it is safe to assume that transactionID collisions will not occur with the proposed length, the transactionID uniqueness check is not required anymore during transaction validation and will be removed for this reason. As a consequence, it is possible to run a node that can validate new blocks without storing the transaction or transactionID history.


Let transactionBytes denote the function that maps every transaction to the byte array, that is currently used as the input for SHA-256, from which the reversed first 8 bytes are used as the transactionID (we do not want to elaborate on how this byte array is generated, since the specification may change over time, e.g. when transaction properties are added or removed).

In the proposed protocol, the transactionID of a transaction tx is generated as follows:

transactionID = SHA-256(transactionBytes(tx))

Usage of the New Format

The new 256-bit transactionID has to be used in every aspect of the protocol.

When transactionIDs are used in RPCs, then they must be represented as hexadecimal strings without the prefix "0x". For non protocol related usages, hexadecimal strings are recommended as well (in some cases, the usage of the prefix "0x" may be advantageous, e.g., in user interfaces).

TransactionID Uniqueness

During the transaction validation, it should not be checked anymore if the transactionID is unique.

Backwards Compatibility

This proposal introduces a hard fork, whereby the causes depend on the implementation of LIP 0012:

  • If LIP 0012 is not implemented, then transaction JSON objects using the proposed transactionID format get rejected by nodes following the current protocol due to invalid transactionIDs.
  • If LIP 0012 is implemented, then from two transactions that have the same transactionID in the current format but different transactionIDs in the proposed format one is rejected by nodes following the current protocol whereas both are accepted by nodes following the proposed protocol.

Independent of LIP 0012, this change introduces the following incompatibilities:

  • RPCs that use transactionIDs lead to miscommunication between nodes. For example, the planned message postTransactionsAnnouncement in LIP 0004, in which a list of transactionIDs is announced to other nodes, is only of value for nodes using the same transactionID format. Nodes using a different format will ignore the provided transactionIDs as they appear invalid.
  • Functions of the Lisk Core API that use transactionIDs, like getTransactions, will not work as expected. For example, if a node using the current transactionID format is requested to provide a transaction for a given transactionID in the proposed format, it will not return the transaction even if the corresponding transaction is known to the node.

Reference Implementation

  1. Mitsuaki Uchimoto:



Consider the transaction represented by the following JSON:

defaultTransaction = {
  type: 0,
  fee: "10000000",
  amount: "9312934243",
  recipientId: "17243547555692708431L",
  timestamp: 79289378,
  asset: {},
  senderPublicKey: "0eb0a6d7b862dc35c856c02c47fde3b4f60f2f3571a888b9a8ca7540c6793243",
  senderId: "18278674964748191682L",
  signature: "2092abc5dd72d42b289f69ddfa85d0145d0bfc19a0415be4496c189e5fdd5eff02f57849f484192b7d34b1671c17e5c22ce76479b411cad83681132f53d7b309",

The corresponding byte array for this transaction (assuming the protocol implemented in Lisk SDK 2.0.0) is the following:

byteArray = '0x0022dcb9040eb0a6d7b862dc35c856c02c47fde3b4f60f2f3571a888b9a8ca7540c6793243ef4d6324449e824f6319182b020000002092abc5dd72d42b289f69ddfa85d0145d0bfc19a0415be4496c189e5fdd5eff02f57849f484192b7d34b1671c17e5c22ce76479b411cad83681132f53d7b309'

The transactionID is then:

transactionID = SHA-256(byteArray) = '0xda63e78daf2096db8316a157a839c8b9a616d3ce6692cfe61d6d380a623a1902'

For comparison, the transactionID according to the current format is as follows:

currentID = '15822870279184933850'