MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150527105805.GC25814@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAOG=w-sfiUQQGUh=RR55NU-TkAi1+2g3_Z+YP3dGDjp8zXYBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150527074713.GB22286@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAAS2fgSjT-dtS8cNoRjvEhtBeG9SUi4OsKAAGkAf_WkxEyg=9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150527105805.GC25814@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 19:07:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoOyjWex=j+yro2xspEH-zsdy3iu6Dyx81ziJ8ZvvVj2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba97f1ae2bae905171346da
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction
 replacement via sequence numbers
Precedence: list

--047d7ba97f1ae2bae905171346da
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On May 27, 2015 12:58 PM, "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> What I'm not seeing is how the relative nLockTime that nSequence
> provides fundamentally changes any of this.

This allows the implementation of a rcltv that doesn't make script depend
on the current height, in a similar way that cltv uses the nLockTime (which
has been compared with the current height already when checking the script).
In fact, the implementation could be simpler if the goal of maintaining the
original nSequence semantics was ignored ( although not that simpler, but
you wouldn't need to use ~ (bitwise not).
I'm still not sure whether there should be 2 BIPs for this or just one.

> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000001643f7706f3dcbc3a386e4c1bfba852ff628d8024f875b6
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

--047d7ba97f1ae2bae905171346da
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p dir="ltr"><br>
On May 27, 2015 12:58 PM, &quot;Peter Todd&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:pete@petertodd.org">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt; wrote:</p>
<p dir="ltr">&gt; What I&#39;m not seeing is how the relative nLockTime that nSequence<br>
&gt; provides fundamentally changes any of this.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This allows the implementation of a rcltv that doesn&#39;t make script depend on the current height, in a similar way that cltv uses the nLockTime (which has been compared with the current height already when checking the script).<br>
In fact, the implementation could be simpler if the goal of maintaining the original nSequence semantics was ignored ( although not that simpler, but you wouldn&#39;t need to use ~ (bitwise not).<br>
I&#39;m still not sure whether there should be 2 BIPs for this or just one.</p>
<p dir="ltr">&gt; --<br>
&gt; &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href="http://petertodd.org">petertodd.org</a><br>
&gt; 000000000000000001643f7706f3dcbc3a386e4c1bfba852ff628d8024f875b6<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
&gt; <a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
&gt;<br>
</p>

--047d7ba97f1ae2bae905171346da--