Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-s7JkB6SyEE0=KwmrasyH22aB2Zf3jBdKcXvrGoNhN_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOG=w-sfiUQQGUh=RR55NU-TkAi1+2g3_Z+YP3dGDjp8zXYBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0QMHp9PwBr=ekkujtA+=LXbgiL4xkXRSmcOGqaLJEp0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-s7JkB6SyEE0=KwmrasyH22aB2Zf3jBdKcXvrGoNhN_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 19:39:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0zKe7hK0KjiXN9M6CHnJxKZfW9myez3G+GWpr3fugBCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2a3a8a295a0051713b977
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction
 replacement via sequence numbers
Precedence: list

--001a11c2a3a8a295a0051713b977
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> 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?
>

Right, but the original protocol allowed for e.g. millions of revisions of
the transaction, hence for high frequency trading (that's actually how
Satoshi originally explained it to me - as a way to do HFT - back then the
channel concept didn't exist).

As you point out, with a careful construction of channels you should only
need to bump the sequence number when the channel reverses direction. If
your app only needs to do that rarely, it's a fine approach.And your
proposal does sounds better than sequence numbers being useless like at the
moment. I'm just wondering if we can get back to the original somehow or at
least leave a path open to it, as it seems to be a superset of all other
proposals, features-wise.

--001a11c2a3a8a295a0051713b977
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Mike=
, this proposal was purposefully constructed to maintain as well as possibl=
e the semantics of Satoshi&#39;s original construction. Higher sequence num=
bers -- chronologically later transactions -- are able to hit the chain ear=
lier, 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 tha=
t original intent?<br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Right, but the orig=
inal protocol allowed for e.g. millions of revisions of the transaction, he=
nce for high frequency trading (that&#39;s actually how Satoshi originally =
explained it to me - as a way to do HFT - back then the channel concept did=
n&#39;t exist).</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra">As you point out, with a careful construction of channels you sho=
uld only need to bump the sequence number when the channel reverses directi=
on. If your app only needs to do that rarely, it&#39;s a fine approach.And =
your proposal does sounds better than sequence numbers being useless like a=
t the moment. I&#39;m just wondering if we can get back to the original som=
ehow or at least leave a path open to it, as it seems to be a superset of a=
ll other proposals, features-wise.</div></div>

--001a11c2a3a8a295a0051713b977--