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"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for
 relative locktime
Precedence: list

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 Timón
> <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
          Timón <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--