MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0QMHp9PwBr=ekkujtA+=LXbgiL4xkXRSmcOGqaLJEp0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOG=w-sfiUQQGUh=RR55NU-TkAi1+2g3_Z+YP3dGDjp8zXYBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0QMHp9PwBr=ekkujtA+=LXbgiL4xkXRSmcOGqaLJEp0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 08:26:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-s7JkB6SyEE0=KwmrasyH22aB2Zf3jBdKcXvrGoNhN_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ff1c977833051711e0ee
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction
 replacement via sequence numbers
Precedence: list

--001a11c2ff1c977833051711e0ee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

>
> As I believe out of all proposed protocols Satoshi's is still the most
> powerful, I would suggest that any change to the semantics on nSequence be
> gated by a high bit or something, so the original meaning remains available
> if/when resource scheduling and update flood damping are implemented. That
> way people can try it out and if miners are breaking things too frequently
> by ignoring the chronological ordering people can abandon protocols that
> rely on it, and if they aren't they can proceed and benefit from the
> greater flexibility.
>
>
Mike, this proposal was purposefully constructed to maintain as well as
possible the semantics of Satoshi's original construction. Higher sequence
numbers -- chronologically later transactions -- are able to hit the chain
earlier, and therefore it can be reasonably argued will be selected by
miners before the later transactions mature. Did I fail in some way to
capture that original intent?

--001a11c2ff1c977833051711e0ee
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.ne=
t</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""></span><div>As I beli=
eve out of all proposed protocols Satoshi&#39;s is still the most powerful,=
 I would suggest that any change to the semantics on nSequence be gated by =
a high bit or something, so the original meaning remains available if/when =
resource scheduling and update flood damping are implemented. That way peop=
le can try it out and if miners are breaking things too frequently by ignor=
ing the chronological ordering people can abandon protocols that rely on it=
, and if they aren&#39;t they can proceed and benefit from the greater flex=
ibility.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Mike, this proposal=
 was purposefully constructed to maintain as well as possible the semantics=
 of Satoshi&#39;s original construction. Higher sequence numbers -- chronol=
ogically later transactions -- are able to hit the chain earlier, and there=
fore it can be reasonably argued will be selected by miners before the late=
r transactions mature. Did I fail in some way to capture that original inte=
nt?<br></div></div>

--001a11c2ff1c977833051711e0ee--