+Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>

+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org

+ [172.17.192.35])

+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C64889C

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:25:18 +0000 (UTC)

+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6

+Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com

+ [209.85.220.46])

+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7125D112

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:25:18 +0000 (UTC)

+Received: by pacti10 with SMTP id ti10so9815290pac.0

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:25:18 -0700 (PDT)

+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;

+ d=1e100.net; s=20130820;

+ h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date

+ :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type;

+ bh=4wxou3BdMb24FdjaVET97vWuW5UJNxd406bPlRh3D8Q=;

+ b=bTrCSDsqjhSmSxwTsZhEkLF8p7gh9OzVGi2ZBME5fOWBbffVARb9AaYVavxkISf8Pr

+ d3F5qqQEB+dAx1XHFO2O+Xf6CDPcrcEksdVJ4ZpcyQE+wS30vRyb1PEXWt/J6PzD3bUv

+ CGJfCz6c4hJePnaJqt8AohVDI/S44ogw/Rk97a8gl06+nOfJ8uyL+7Nl297+hTuNNoy7

+ VnoIYzpLE5ajhnaS6rEl37bXASnG3hb41ULgWpiNKLbmcgZRHbwzAd5V+Toh+CihCh9+

+ /Lq6fzT0rAz6dW9KSvCmmIoh+wo+KWmNan02cVYPudKn0FN5hF5if3Z4dbk89xgcd031

+ RoLg==

+X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvPdi3hRUk4LTTAe9ONr7yNSfp6H1OikLV4vMjV0CGfqn4BhE3g7tRwhCXtt8dQPPGlENh

+X-Received: by 10.68.68.233 with SMTP id z9mr39680263pbt.140.1440375918139;

+ Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:25:18 -0700 (PDT)

+Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.

+ [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id

+ nj9sm15122526pdb.77.2015.08.23.17.25.16

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+ (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);

+ Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:25:16 -0700 (PDT)

+To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

+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>

+From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>

+Message-ID: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com>

+Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:25:20 -0700

+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101

+ Thunderbird/38.2.0

+MIME-Version: 1.0

+In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sbOcaogkic2i4A5eZnBQ79LUibsGy0dyKyvQg53ktY1Q@mail.gmail.com>

+Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

+ boundary="------------010801010703040004020303"

+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,

+ RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,UC_GIBBERISH_OBFU autolearn=no version=3.3.1

+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on

+ smtp1.linux-foundation.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 00:25:18 -0000

+

+This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

+--------------010801010703040004020303

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

+

+ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation of

+existing semantics.

+

+http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html

+

+

+On 8/19/2015 9:21 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:

+> I am indifferent on this issue (the bit inversion), but so far only

+> Jorge has spoken up. I opted for this detail during implementation in

+> order to preserve existing semantics, even if those semantics are not

+> commonly used. This was the conservative choice, driven in part

+> because I didn't want the proposal to be held up by the other side

+> saying "this is confusing because it changes how sequence numbers

+> work! it used to count up but now it counts down!"

+>

+> I can see both sides and as I said I'm indifferent, so I went with the

+> conservative choice of not messing with existing semantics. However if

+> there is strong preferences from _multiple_ people on this matter it

+> is not too late to change. If anyone feels strongly about this, please

+> speak up.

+>

+> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Tim�n

+> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

+> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

+>

+> I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179

+>

+>

+> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev

+> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

+> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

+> > Please note there is now a PR for this BIP[1] and also a pull

+> request for

+> > the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core[2].

+> >

+> > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179

+> > [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564

+>

+

+

+--------------010801010703040004020303

+Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

+

+<html>

+ <head>

+ <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"

+ http-equiv="Content-Type">

+ </head>

+ <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">

+ ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation

+ of existing semantics.<br>

+ <br>

+<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html</a><br>

+ <br>

+ <br>

+ <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/19/2015 9:21 AM, Mark Friedenbach

+ via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>

+ </div>

+ <blockquote

+cite="mid:CAOG=w-sbOcaogkic2i4A5eZnBQ79LUibsGy0dyKyvQg53ktY1Q@mail.gmail.com"

+ type="cite">

+ <div dir="ltr">

+ <div>I am indifferent on this issue (the bit inversion), but so

+ far only Jorge has spoken up. I opted for this detail during

+ implementation in order to preserve existing semantics, even

+ if those semantics are not commonly used. This was the

+ conservative choice, driven in part because I didn't want the

+ proposal to be held up by the other side saying "this is

+ confusing because it changes how sequence numbers work! it

+ used to count up but now it counts down!"<br>

+ <br>

+ </div>

+ I can see both sides and as I said I'm indifferent, so I went

+ with the conservative choice of not messing with existing

+ semantics. However if there is strong preferences from

+ _multiple_ people on this matter it is not too late to change.

+ If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up.<br>

+ </div>

+ <div class="gmail_extra"><br>

+ <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge

+ Tim�n <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"

+ href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"

+ target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span>

+ wrote:<br>

+ <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0

+ .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I repeated

+ my nit on <a moz-do-not-send="true"

+ href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179"

+ rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179</a><br>

+ <div class="HOEnZb">

+ <div class="h5"><br>

+ <br>

+ On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Btc Drak via

+ bitcoin-dev<br>

+ &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"

+ href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;

+ wrote:<br>

+ &gt; Please note there is now a PR for this BIP[1] and

+ also a pull request for<br>

+ &gt; the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core[2].<br>

+ &gt;<br>

+ &gt; [1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"

+ href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179"

+ rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179</a><br>

+ &gt; [2] <a moz-do-not-send="true"

+ href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564"

+ rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564</a><br>

+ </div>

+ </div>

+ </blockquote>

+ </div>

+ </div>

+ </blockquote>

+ <br>

+ </body>

+</html>

+

+--------------010801010703040004020303--

+