MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:29:06 -0400
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <87k2shig1x.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
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>
	<87k2shig1x.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Message-ID: <153ca520525adc59935e6ef4c57fd7a0@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for
 relative locktime
Precedence: list

Rusty Russell 於 2015-08-26 23:08 寫到:
> - 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.

This is not needed because BIP68 is not active for version 1 tx. No 
existing wallet would be affected.

> 
> 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?

Do you mean "have nLockTime apply even if nSequence = 0xFFFFFFFF"? This 
is a softfork. Should we do this together with BIP65, BIP68 and BIP112?


> Thanks,
> Rusty.