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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA2F1B7A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:07:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 488A9CD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:07:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx04.mykolab.com (mx04.mykolab.com [10.20.7.102])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F64636D6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:07:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:07:33 +0200
Message-ID: <6618657.bnLDbNbqGc@kiwi>
In-Reply-To: <57E43810.3070905@jonasschnelli.ch>
References: <CAKEeUhjisp8qdXDNz3C+pB1MUTfvmHZPmsE-f0DVTxnph6NmMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2232258.WNiT0kZN2f@kiwi> <57E43810.3070905@jonasschnelli.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:09:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requesting BIP assignment; Flexible Transactions.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 22 Sep 2016 20:07:38 -0000
On Thursday, 22 September 2016 21:59:12 CEST Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> > I think you misunderstand tagged systems at a very basic level. You
> > think that html can only use a bold tag <b> once in a document? Thats
> > equivalent to what you are saying.
>
> Would the "additional" segment contain the same amount of
> nSequence-equivalent token as the number of inputs in the "inputs"
> segment?
At this point I don't know what it should look like, I have not had time to
look deeply into BIP68. Is this what you would suggest it to look like?
I rather figured spending limitations would be assigned to an output, not
an input.
> However, I think that should be mentioned/specified in the BIP.
It can be, and likely should be. This BIP doesn't pretend to be finished
yet.
I welcome any and all discussion about this, it only serves to make the end
result stronger!
|
