Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <rusty@ozlabs.org>) id 1Z2Vz6-0000Ne-Gm
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:43:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of ozlabs.org
	designates 103.22.144.67 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=103.22.144.67; envelope-from=rusty@ozlabs.org;
	helo=ozlabs.org; 
Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z2Vz5-0006Hw-3v
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:43:20 +0000
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
	id A305714076C; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:43:10 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWrVP+jE9bL=9+eC+RE5L5kYQ_Y-JT4Go2r+o-M=eYssw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOG=w-sfiUQQGUh=RR55NU-TkAi1+2g3_Z+YP3dGDjp8zXYBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0QMHp9PwBr=ekkujtA+=LXbgiL4xkXRSmcOGqaLJEp0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-s7JkB6SyEE0=KwmrasyH22aB2Zf3jBdKcXvrGoNhN_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0zKe7hK0KjiXN9M6CHnJxKZfW9myez3G+GWpr3fugBCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-vusO30sBZfsuP94wbkUUfHupmhQtScGsJ2463sO=EpzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OUG5p_hAOFvaE10kTT7sa=2GrzvZpis5FzATSEcNwZpyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-tQyrc8ncAFauDObmBYn3uSwBcLoWVqruaV6PcTUFbTKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OXO++0n+UVKe1KYyGv=GyHrZ-MsJtYELk+KC6cEV2UbHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-vY7WHso90mtzhSRiuTLVfahMv1Xr6p_AZvyh4krxPLSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OWrVP+jE9bL=9+eC+RE5L5kYQ_Y-JT4Go2r+o-M=eYssw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:10:38 +0930
Message-ID: <87ioawp9p5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.8 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z2Vz5-0006Hw-3v
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction
	replacement via sequence numbers
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: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:43:20 -0000

Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> writes:
> What are the use cases for relative lock time verify?  I have 1 and I think
> that is the kind of thing it is useful for.
>
> I think that most cases are just to guarantee that the other party has a
> chance to react.  This means that 8191 blocks should be more than enough
> (and most would set it lower).
>
> For long term, the absolute version is just as good.  That depends on use
> cases.  "You can't take step 4 until 3 months after step 3 has completed"
> doesn't seem useful.

Lightning channels want them exactly like this to revoke old
transactions, which could be ancient on long-lived channels.

Cheers,
Rusty.