1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 650E5DB3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:29:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EA7D10E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:29:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:36836 helo=server47.web-hosting.com)
by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85)
(envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>)
id 1ZUwIk-001gfe-FP; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:29:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:29:06 -0400
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <87k2shig1x.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
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>
<85537faedb1e601d243e3edb666fa844@xbt.hk>
<CAOG=w-vXFcq1bCkviWOK8nh5wz77tYy9hbLXCn8nGLzNRTSgOw@mail.gmail.com>
<d7ba4da921d3ab55dc774dbd78c21744@xbt.hk>
<CADJgMzsLU5tQDLp0NWDwE6S476PdwvrOWOpn8oQ+5JPyoyi8gQ@mail.gmail.com>
<87k2shig1x.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Message-ID: <153ca520525adc59935e6ef4c57fd7a0@xbt.hk>
X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for
relative locktime
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:29:08 -0000
Rusty Russell 於 2015-08-26 23:08 寫到:
> - We should immediately deploy an IsStandard() rule which insists that
> nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF or 0, so nobody screws themselves when we
> soft fork and they had random junk in there.
This is not needed because BIP68 is not active for version 1 tx. No
existing wallet would be affected.
>
> Aside: I'd also like to have nLockTime apply even if nSequence !=
> 0xFFFFFFFF (another mistake I made). So I'd like an IsStandard() rule
> to say it nLockTime be 0 if an nSequence != 0xFFFFFFFF. Would that
> screw anyone currently?
Do you mean "have nLockTime apply even if nSequence = 0xFFFFFFFF"? This
is a softfork. Should we do this together with BIP65, BIP68 and BIP112?
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
|
