<p>I saw the following liquid transaction with one input and two outputs is byte-wise bigger than another liquid transaction with two inputs and two outputs. How is this possible?</p>

<p>One input transaction (2772 vB): <a href="https://blockstream.info/liquid/tx/35d4db9621c70d3bcfe258487fd74447e12f5c9b71b3161e22e15bdeb157eea8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockstream.info/liquid/tx/35d4db9621c70d3bcfe258487fd74447e12f5c9b71b3161e22e15bdeb157eea8</a></p>

<p>Two input transaction (2102 vB):
<a href="https://blockstream.info/liquid/tx/75621a91c3b3d779c646ecfd8278462040e743ef6535343ae0dc41e2ed7b6fa8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockstream.info/liquid/tx/75621a91c3b3d779c646ecfd8278462040e743ef6535343ae0dc41e2ed7b6fa8</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-11T18:23:00.857Z
One has an asset creation commitment and one doesn’t.
Claris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T17:52:37.957Z
I was confused when I read your question, but looking at the two transactions, I think you meant "bigger" rather than "smaller? I've updated your question. Please check whether I got it right! :)
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-07T21:17:03.293Z
Yes that's correct, thank you for that!:)
Bertram Lund
<confidential-transactions><transaction-weight><liquid>
How is this 1 input 2 output tx larger than this 2 input 2 output tx?
Bertram Lund
# How is this 1 input 2 output tx larger than this 2 input 2 output tx?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-10-11)

I saw the following liquid transaction with one input and two outputs is byte-wise bigger than another liquid transaction with two inputs and two outputs. How is this possible?

One input transaction (2772 vB): <https://blockstream.info/liquid/tx/35d4db9621c70d3bcfe258487fd74447e12f5c9b71b3161e22e15bdeb157eea8>

Two input transaction (2102 vB):
<https://blockstream.info/liquid/tx/75621a91c3b3d779c646ecfd8278462040e743ef6535343ae0dc41e2ed7b6fa8>

**Tags:** confidential-transactions, transaction-weight, liquid

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: One has an asset creation commitment and one doesn’t.  
> **username_2**: I was confused when I read your question, but looking at the two transactions, I think you meant "bigger" rather than "smaller? I've updated your question. Please check whether I got it right! :)  
> **username_0**: Yes that's correct, thank you for that!:)  

---

## 0 answers

