summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/66/fb926f7ccc9b3d55152cb05efbd92280a38d0b
blob: aa6bc393134a80dc35a7d94fbe8ace446840253d (plain)
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
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C396514D7
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  8 Oct 2015 17:43:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk
	[62.13.149.115])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B898244
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  8 Oct 2015 17:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
	by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t98HhWXE051820;
	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:43:32 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck (de2x.mullvad.net [46.165.208.203])
	(authenticated bits=128)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t98HhTOC038767
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:43:31 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:43:29 +0200
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20151008174329.GB9291@muck>
References: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck>
X-Server-Quench: 1769c27a-6de4-11e5-b39a-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	aQdMdgoUF1YAAgsB AmMbWlxeVF57WmI7 bwxPbANYfEhOVxto
	UEtWR1pVCwQmRRUJ fkZ6LWpydA1Bfnk+ Y0JnWD5aW0JzJkR6
	E1NSQTgCeGZhPWUC AkNRJh5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
	HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aSEgBnEpbH82MxgX ai4vJxQBLAVADxo+
	ZxorJ1JUGUELPw0v KlYqUEkVKFcODW8W GkZRATFQO1RJWyom RQhaVEgRHVUA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 46.165.208.203/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
	anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to
 motivate the change
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, 08 Oct 2015 17:43:36 -0000


--NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 04:30:56PM +0200, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP68 and BIP112 collectively define the CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY semantics,
<snip>

Another issue that came to mind re: CSV review is that there isn't
actually any one pull-req with all the code changes together, making it
hard to be sure what the final effect will be once all three BIPs are
merged.

While evaluating stuff separately is often good, I think this is a case
where the overall design needs to be evaluated as a single unit to fully
understand the behavior.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000de60f807a5fd32057510e7715038ecbc888052861b6a5c1

--NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=+SPS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ--