Message-ID: <55995A6D.8090703@thinlink.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:25:17 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
References: <55994696.1090705@thinlink.com>
	<CAOG=w-sgM+H0bGBfZxLhbUHF3y=v4vdBAOTDsZ1LEc3dLzsf6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sgM+H0bGBfZxLhbUHF3y=v4vdBAOTDsZ1LEc3dLzsf6g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------020504080806030408030003"
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 68 (Relative Locktime) bug
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020504080806030408030003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Since you're removing a working capability, you should be the one to
prove it is unneeded.

But the simple example is the case where the input is also locked.


On 7/5/2015 9:17 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>
> Can you construct an example? Are there use cases where there is a
> need for an enforced lock time in a transaction with inputs that are
> not confirmed at the time the lock time expires?
>
> On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding" <tomh@thinlink.com
> <mailto:tomh@thinlink.com>> wrote:
>
>     BIP 68 uses nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also
>     continues to condition the transaction-level locktime.
>
>     This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an effective
>     nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to be
>     mined
>     at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent.
>
>     The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence = MAX_INT - 1
>     specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1.  This change will also
>     preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been created
>     with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all
>     transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in 0.11).
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     bitcoin-dev mailing list
>     bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


--------------020504080806030408030003
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Since you're removing a working capability, you should be the one to
    prove it is unneeded.<br>
    <br>
    But the simple example is the case where the input is also locked.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/5/2015 9:17 AM, Mark Friedenbach
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAOG=w-sgM+H0bGBfZxLhbUHF3y=v4vdBAOTDsZ1LEc3dLzsf6g@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <p dir="ltr">Can you construct an example? Are there use cases
        where there is a need for an enforced lock time in a transaction
        with inputs that are not confirmed at the time the lock time
        expires?</p>
      <div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding"
        &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:tomh@thinlink.com">tomh@thinlink.com</a>&gt;
        wrote:<br type="attribution">
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">BIP 68 uses
          nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also<br>
          continues to condition the transaction-level locktime.<br>
          <br>
          This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an
          effective<br>
          nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to
          be mined<br>
          at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent.<br>
          <br>
          The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence = MAX_INT
          - 1<br>
          specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1.  This change
          will also<br>
          preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been
          created<br>
          with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all<br>
          transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in
          0.11).<br>
          <br>
          <br>
          _______________________________________________<br>
          bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
          <a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
          <a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
            rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------020504080806030408030003--