1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
|
Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D22AA9C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:37:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcse8 with SMTP id se8so36848191igc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <CABm2gDqW7OGuyZ1BTTeeivDf9wFVsAK9AaGYm8XWwLb2O2Lb+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMztgE_GkbrsP7zCEHNPA3P6T=aSFfhkcN-q=gVhWP0vKXg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzv8G3EqLBwEYRHJZ+fO_Jwzy0koi2pJ_iNRkXmoVarGcg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDod9z6ksgaCv86qFCyKLTQSL3+oNns+__5H77hVhs05DQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-sbOcaogkic2i4A5eZnBQ79LUibsGy0dyKyvQg53ktY1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com>
<CAAS2fgQKQpHu-nC1uSrigDx2JLUt64p-LqidVmiuULDE0MJCFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqW7OGuyZ1BTTeeivDf9wFVsAK9AaGYm8XWwLb2O2Lb+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:37:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-ubk3nPfxy25Hd6kPeehf7vnYD5chksLWU5wU2t=jL5TA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.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? 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
<p dir=3D"ltr">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.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n&=
quot; <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
solid;padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell v=
ia bitcoin-dev<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the<br>
> discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more=
<br>
> than one increment?=C2=A0 This would leave additional space for future=
<br>
> signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a<br>
> sharechain commitement.<br>
<br>
No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to<=
br>
Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1".<br>
He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--089e0111c0162db479051e057f23--
|
