Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C396514D7 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:43:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.149.115]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B898244 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:43:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t98HhWXE051820; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:43:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck (de2x.mullvad.net [46.165.208.203]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t98HhTOC038767 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:43:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:43:29 +0200 From: Peter Todd To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <20151008174329.GB9291@muck> References: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck> X-Server-Quench: 1769c27a-6de4-11e5-b39a-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgoUF1YAAgsB AmMbWlxeVF57WmI7 bwxPbANYfEhOVxto UEtWR1pVCwQmRRUJ fkZ6LWpydA1Bfnk+ Y0JnWD5aW0JzJkR6 E1NSQTgCeGZhPWUC AkNRJh5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aSEgBnEpbH82MxgX ai4vJxQBLAVADxo+ ZxorJ1JUGUELPw0v KlYqUEkVKFcODW8W GkZRATFQO1RJWyom RQhaVEgRHVUA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 46.165.208.203/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to motivate the change X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:43:36 -0000 --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 04:30:56PM +0200, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP68 and BIP112 collectively define the CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY semantics, Another issue that came to mind re: CSV review is that there isn't actually any one pull-req with all the code changes together, making it hard to be sure what the final effect will be once all three BIPs are merged. While evaluating stuff separately is often good, I think this is a case where the overall design needs to be evaluated as a single unit to fully understand the behavior. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000de60f807a5fd32057510e7715038ecbc888052861b6a5c1 --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJWFqs+XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwZGU2MGY4MDdhNWZkMzIwNTc1MTBlNzcxNTAzOGVjYmM4 ODgwNTI4NjFiNmE1YzEvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udwYQwf8DWj1pRlxUzeU2xvfbjIVlCGr uSGqaEdxbJiBOqR8YXFNtlbDujqYDbKvHVo38OQTa4tLcqTDjAY3LOmWfEQeTWbJ WEc87MiK62kLrtRCmPjFJqnQqmupottPXUstnhgQUbs72KqUL+I6TEJKz4/EG8VB g+6dSra6ZMjnuhOas7EVbq7MQjLcf2BXLshbxFnv1gfThnXbOdfePbGM/FNXVrI1 lX2b6iux+31MC/qzglcmNWtK9gfNls1d7zl/z8CUU4fua3J9NG+b6qGKnCRNxxbf h8dsyMDX63uHJ6LkgbVvr2GF4VKeYfI5Pd33ZTOsz2YF2PjvWCQctcqoC2jJRQ== =+SPS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ--