diff options
| author | Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko@leastauthority.com> | 2015-03-19 17:39:09 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-03-19 18:05:54 +0000 |
| commit | 0fda326c868343ee3c1db58364cf651323846991 (patch) | |
| tree | f303e66c06bf14eb270a2c34d23c9a4ac2c6725c | |
| parent | c2740af1d0e0b2d7bfe47baa52a0d338b2ce717d (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-0fda326c868343ee3c1db58364cf651323846991.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-0fda326c868343ee3c1db58364cf651323846991.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV proposal)
| -rw-r--r-- | 8c/e91b2460ad27814ac2a02e57fa3cd265000df1 | 74 |
1 files changed, 74 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/8c/e91b2460ad27814ac2a02e57fa3cd265000df1 b/8c/e91b2460ad27814ac2a02e57fa3cd265000df1 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7753312f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/8c/e91b2460ad27814ac2a02e57fa3cd265000df1 @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <zooko@leastauthority.com>) id 1YYepO-0007ll-Hg + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:05:54 +0000 +X-ACL-Warn: +Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]) + by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YYepN-0006FX-Dr + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:05:54 +0000 +Received: by pdbop1 with SMTP id op1so82991986pdb.2 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:05:47 -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:content-type; + bh=VSg1MbkOPc+y7Tz08NXTMKG826Bn0+VT8QktbXtnnt8=; + b=klRej7Bf+8/TeavQ3tyWigWTeb9Scf3gqUwJS+HO0sJ3ZzmCo4mgTAEm8P0FPGihp5 + mAuSo3CvxsE1BxEK4un9jh3kTsPDEfUJ6k7Bq6Cdw7umrxQ+aMv9gNwHjnbMNZOYD4Ot + Dt66cP4dsWOqMEMixWAHL1tO5ZALyS/tG2fRvunkxFrTijwTTCsF4RQ3vMbmSl7DsvSD + S5E+pmRLPvehTIzCTfyW7ivmdSjXXmbP29ZuFB+Q2zkF9lorChxrE0IeZAXp00zn1MNV + qhOOOcF/ghN4oFNUDHgKm7evyaPEhHt9LftOnZYRewZAa0rAuUvO0NFF8xxPlcVGW+Q5 + gYEQ== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYVwhyP0q/zTIZi0Q3VDzoNr5OxIeWbNsASJrkDLQ5HMmhQH92VipiM1tEkTfPtX73ope8 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.66.101.106 with SMTP id ff10mr181556653pab.103.1426786749070; + Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:39:09 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.70.12.35 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:39:09 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <55075795.20904@bluematt.me> +References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org> + <55075795.20904@bluematt.me> +Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:39:09 +0000 +Message-ID: <CAM_a8JywbMrUp+Hz8ZJ5skMszMYNV0hGq6WkeFXS+D0bO+wHLw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko@leastauthority.com> +To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + 1.0 UC_GIBBERISH_OBFU Multiple instances of "word VERYLONGGIBBERISH + word" +X-Headers-End: 1YYepN-0006FX-Dr +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV + proposal) +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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:05:54 -0000 + +I'm in favor of relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, but I don't have a very +specific reason. I just have a vague worry that there can be "race +conditions" in which a txn with an absolute CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY goes +into the blockchain later than one of its signers expected that it +would, and therefore there is a surprisingly short delay between that +transaction going into the blockchain and becoming spendable. + +This worry of mine is assuaged by using relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY instead. + +Regards, + +Zooko + + |