Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <zooko@leastauthority.com>) id 1YYepO-0007ll-Hg
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:05:54 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YYepN-0006FX-Dr
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:05:54 +0000
Received: by pdbop1 with SMTP id op1so82991986pdb.2
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:05:47 -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:content-type;
	bh=VSg1MbkOPc+y7Tz08NXTMKG826Bn0+VT8QktbXtnnt8=;
	b=klRej7Bf+8/TeavQ3tyWigWTeb9Scf3gqUwJS+HO0sJ3ZzmCo4mgTAEm8P0FPGihp5
	mAuSo3CvxsE1BxEK4un9jh3kTsPDEfUJ6k7Bq6Cdw7umrxQ+aMv9gNwHjnbMNZOYD4Ot
	Dt66cP4dsWOqMEMixWAHL1tO5ZALyS/tG2fRvunkxFrTijwTTCsF4RQ3vMbmSl7DsvSD
	S5E+pmRLPvehTIzCTfyW7ivmdSjXXmbP29ZuFB+Q2zkF9lorChxrE0IeZAXp00zn1MNV
	qhOOOcF/ghN4oFNUDHgKm7evyaPEhHt9LftOnZYRewZAa0rAuUvO0NFF8xxPlcVGW+Q5
	gYEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYVwhyP0q/zTIZi0Q3VDzoNr5OxIeWbNsASJrkDLQ5HMmhQH92VipiM1tEkTfPtX73ope8
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.101.106 with SMTP id ff10mr181556653pab.103.1426786749070;
	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.12.35 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55075795.20904@bluematt.me>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
	<55075795.20904@bluematt.me>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:39:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM_a8JywbMrUp+Hz8ZJ5skMszMYNV0hGq6WkeFXS+D0bO+wHLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko@leastauthority.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	1.0 UC_GIBBERISH_OBFU Multiple instances of "word VERYLONGGIBBERISH
	word"
X-Headers-End: 1YYepN-0006FX-Dr
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV
	proposal)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:05:54 -0000

I'm in favor of relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, but I don't have a very
specific reason. I just have a vague worry that there can be "race
conditions" in which a txn with an absolute CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY goes
into the blockchain later than one of its signers expected that it
would, and therefore there is a surprisingly short delay between that
transaction going into the blockchain and becoming spendable.

This worry of mine is assuaged by using relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY instead.

Regards,

Zooko