From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>,
	Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-u2b9BTNyAxdzEnOxazr1Gc_Yrf5CxCfrjeJi39NV=cgQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<CABm2gDqW7OGuyZ1BTTeeivDf9wFVsAK9AaGYm8XWwLb2O2Lb+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-ubk3nPfxy25Hd6kPeehf7vnYD5chksLWU5wU2t=jL5TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-to4Vrx4ykKJTy5EAyN4GZd6Q=G5FzqZH-5J3Thz_VNpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-tuFtX2t+0FVfkoObw_a9-7j4LwX87YJU1n7adYu=DMdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzsPrg7VhTQC8aCvcQ3yAN8rtt+Qv_yfrCKMqOALpGPVyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E3B7469-1018-4649-8DF1-6597F82774F1@gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-u2b9BTNyAxdzEnOxazr1Gc_Yrf5CxCfrjeJi39NV=cgQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:51:19 +0930
Message-ID: <876138ikts.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for
	relative locktime
Precedence: list

Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> Eric, that would be, I think, my sequencenumbers2 branch in which nSequence
> is an explicit relative lock-time field (unless the most significant bit is
> set). That has absolutely clear semantics. You should comment on #6312
> where this is being discussed.

Indeed.  Simplicity wins.  We have half the number space left for the
future, too.  If people are paranoid, reserve the top *two* bits.

Thanks,
Rusty.