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
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F14FE9A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 03:08:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08AF3102
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 03:08:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id DC0FE1401EF; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:08:54 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>, jl2012@xbt.hk
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzsLU5tQDLp0NWDwE6S476PdwvrOWOpn8oQ+5JPyoyi8gQ@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>
<85537faedb1e601d243e3edb666fa844@xbt.hk>
<CAOG=w-vXFcq1bCkviWOK8nh5wz77tYy9hbLXCn8nGLzNRTSgOw@mail.gmail.com>
<d7ba4da921d3ab55dc774dbd78c21744@xbt.hk>
<CADJgMzsLU5tQDLp0NWDwE6S476PdwvrOWOpn8oQ+5JPyoyi8gQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:38:42 +0930
Message-ID: <87k2shig1x.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 03:08:58 -0000
Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> This BIP has been assigned BIP112 by the BIP repository maintainer. I
> have updated the pull request accordingly.
>
> Regarding the suggestion to cannibalise version, by your own
> disadvantage list, we would lose fine grained control over txins which
> neuters the usefulness considerably. Also using version is also ugly
> because there isn't a semantic association with what we are trying to
> do, whereas, sequence is associated with transaction finality and is
> thus the more appropriate and logical field to use.
OK, having implemented lightning test code against the initial proposal,
I can give the following anecdata:
- I screwed up inversion in my initial implementation. Please kill it.
- 256 second granularity would be be fine in deployment, but a bit
painful for testing (I currently use 60 seconds, and "sleep 61"). 64
would work better for me, and works roughly as minutes.
- 1 year should be sufficient as a max; my current handwave is <= 1 day
per lightning hop, max 12 hops, though we have no deployment data.
- We should immediately deploy an IsStandard() rule which insists that
nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF or 0, so nobody screws themselves when we
soft fork and they had random junk in there.
Aside: I'd also like to have nLockTime apply even if nSequence !=
0xFFFFFFFF (another mistake I made). So I'd like an IsStandard() rule
to say it nLockTime be 0 if an nSequence != 0xFFFFFFFF. Would that
screw anyone currently?
Thanks,
Rusty.
|
