Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D22AA9C for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:37:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78520178 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igcse8 with SMTP id se8so36848191igc.1 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:37:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UGPT5YfV+SIzW6WgQdo61o2MPH0Bsct4Fv+CdKfLBxs=; b=g285HCLyWiQhSbNQNS8rw7DikPWbGvvCAwhk8nzafIeVGQlijfeT8jdp9RABvH0ERE yI8u37ZHeA1p9SKZpqG7phpvlpFDEG0CD0rcQmqlGzaqhidB7t5l+9VPZAFKy5/o7eNw C7/48g9Qkm+TvC0koDCNc4yl1yB0YFVifGkDhzYVAjlB7FvxzimH9TNIfBWb6pZ3Zye5 jQZHJyrOByBoB08HsTGxDAytaoJP2TzRNFE/aSk6viTiV57H499KY4rq3IYK49MPzxzp hYkCjrLqW9aPW4X6GfMOefKZll6qFOvMUTjx8/FX18nS93U9PHCk8ScR+4nQUJlrmLlz OnCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlwvhUDlBh3tklRXc5reP6ARjrOKHxbuUKlw0ZIV0qDkNiKbPucKTWi4N86CpsW/pkYf/31 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.227 with SMTP id z3mr12118791igl.22.1440383840916; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:37:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.56.30.71] Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:37:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:37:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mark Friedenbach To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111c0162db479051e057f23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:37:22 -0000 --089e0111c0162db479051e057f23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A power of 2 would be far more efficient here. The key question is how long of a relative block time do you need? Figure out what the maximum should be ( I don't know what that would be, any ideas?) and then see how many bits you have left over. On Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the > > discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more > > than one increment? This would leave additional space for future > > signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a > > sharechain commitement. > > No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to > Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1". > He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --089e0111c0162db479051e057f23 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A power of 2 would be far more efficient here. The key quest= ion is how long of a relative block time do you need? Figure out what the m= aximum should be ( I don't know what that would be, any ideas?) and the= n see how many bits you have left over.

On Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n&= quot; <bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell v= ia bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the
> discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more=
> than one increment?=C2=A0 This would leave additional space for future=
> signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a
> sharechain commitement.

No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to<= br> Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1".
He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--089e0111c0162db479051e057f23--