user49662: Consider the case where:

Address A has some BTC.
Address B is empty/zero.
Address C is the intended recipient.

B sending to C is invalid on its own, but does make sense if associated with A sending to B first
Can two dependent transactions be put into the same block and accepted?

A ==> B
B ==> C


(Since the net result will be OK, even though the second transaction does not make sense until the first one is completed)

user101498: Yes, but only if A -> B is placed before B -> C in the list of transactions.
Here is a graph of the percentage of transactions spending each other in the same block, it is usually around 10%.

49662: <p>Consider the case where:</p>
<ul>
<li>Address <strong>A</strong> has some BTC.</li>
<li>Address <strong>B</strong> is empty/zero.</li>
<li>Address <strong>C</strong> is the intended recipient.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>B</strong> sending to <strong>C</strong> is invalid on its own, but does make sense if associated with <strong>A</strong> sending to <strong>B</strong> first</p>
<p>Can two dependent transactions be put into the same block and accepted?</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>A</strong> ==&gt; <strong>B</strong></li>
<li><strong>B</strong> ==&gt; <strong>C</strong></li>
</ul>
<br>
<p><em>(Since the net result will be OK, even though the second transaction does not make sense until the first one is completed)</em></p>
 101498: <p>Yes, but only if <code>A -&gt; B</code> is placed before <code>B -&gt; C</code> in the list of transactions.</p>
<p><a href="https://transactionfee.info/charts/inputs-and-outputs-same-block-spends/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is a graph of the percentage of transactions spending each other in the same block, it is usually around 10%.</p>
