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
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1YsHJB-0005aI-2L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 21:01:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.109 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.109; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk;
Received: from outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.109])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1YsHJ8-0003Og-6S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 21:01:45 +0000
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 t4CL1WNr076646;
Tue, 12 May 2015 22:01:32 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck ([209.226.201.222]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t4CL1Qpt063083
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Tue, 12 May 2015 22:01:29 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 17:01:25 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <20150512210125.GA5902@muck>
References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
<CABm2gDqVu9OqNpOgCa6hMw3CXp7ePWTaAGPtMq4T9rG658K=ow@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzv1NdoXKDScQ1+OycijzME=W2YSut3GMF=EEuKQf6VeUg@mail.gmail.com>
<201505122038.28831.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201505122038.28831.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Server-Quench: 1021ffa0-f8ea-11e4-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdwAUFVQNAgsB AmMbWVZeUFx7WmM7 aQpYcwdfZFRMXwR0
UkpLXVdaExppT1gF dWIfM1k2dwNFeHZz K0FgXnAVXUR4dBAr
E05JQ2VTNHphaTUb TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNRoA eVgFBT4oEUBNTiE3
KBcvNl8bGhVZNkI0 Ph49VEgdewcWAwtF SCkA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 209.226.201.222/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YsHJ8-0003Og-6S
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] CLTV opcode allocation; long-term plans?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 21:01:45 -0000
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:38:27PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> It should actually be straightforward to softfork RCLTV in as a negative =
CLTV.
> All nLockTime are >=3D any negative number, so a negative number makes CL=
TV a=20
> no-op always. Therefore, it is clean to define negative numbers as relati=
ve=20
> later. It's also somewhat obvious to developers, since negative numbers o=
ften=20
> imply an offset (eg, negative list indices in Python).
Doing this makes handling the year 2038 problem a good deal more
complex.
The CLTV codebase specifically fails on negative arguments to avoid any
ambiguity or implementation differences here.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000e7980aab9c096c46e7f34c43a661c5cb2ea71525ebb8af7
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=GJSs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF--
|
