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
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <btcdrak@gmail.com>) id 1YpQwG-0007iY-05
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 May 2015 00:42:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YpQwF-0003vV-3J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 May 2015 00:42:19 +0000
Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so88900515wic.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 04 May 2015 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.78.49 with SMTP id y17mr46900881wjw.131.1430786533088;
Mon, 04 May 2015 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.136.196 with HTTP; Mon, 4 May 2015 17:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqcD4ENex3LzKfeGqaotoO-XxLHhLzOEPwk92SaiD8snQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
<55075795.20904@bluematt.me>
<20150421075912.GA25282@savin.petertodd.org>
<5546D653.4070404@bluematt.me>
<CABm2gDqcD4ENex3LzKfeGqaotoO-XxLHhLzOEPwk92SaiD8snQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 01:41:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztaJgUH81Bc1s4P45d2u-35Si7=7rON=UdZn4piycxHpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcf1de0de1ef05154af3c1
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(btcdrak[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YpQwF-0003vV-3J
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV
proposal)
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, 05 May 2015 00:42:20 -0000
--047d7bfcf1de0de1ef05154af3c1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
> What I was describing was an attempt to fix a similar proposal by Mark
> Friedenbach, but it didn't needed fixing: I was simply
> misunderstanding it.
> Mark's RCLTV is completely reorg safe, so there's no need for the 100
> block restriction. It also keeps the script validation independent
> from the utxo.
> Here's is how it works:
>
> The operator takes a relative_height parameter and it checks that the
> nSequence of the input is lower than that parameter.
>
> Additionally, a new check at the transaction level:
>
> for (unsigned int i =3D 0; i < tx.vin.size(); i++) {
> // ...
> if (coins->nHeight + tx.vin[i].nSequence < nSpendHeight)
> return state.Invalid(false, REJECT_INVALID,
> "bad-txns-non-final-input");
> // ...
> }
>
> Well, this is assuming that we're only using it with heights and not
> timestamps.
> Mark, feel free to elaborate further.
Does dropping timestamp refer just to RCLTV or absolutely CLTV also? For
absolute CLTV I think it's important to have timestamps so that trust fund
use cases are practical (e.g. spendable on 18th birthday), because the
exact date a future block will be mined on is unpredictable if it's far
enough in the future (out by days or even weeks).
--047d7bfcf1de0de1ef05154af3c1
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">On M=
on, May 4, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>></sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">What I was describing was an a=
ttempt to fix a similar proposal by Mark<br>
Friedenbach, but it didn't needed fixing: I was simply<br>
misunderstanding it.<br>
Mark's RCLTV is completely reorg safe, so there's no need for the 1=
00<br>
block restriction. It also keeps the script validation independent<br>
from the utxo.<br>
Here's is how it works:<br>
<br>
The operator takes a relative_height parameter and it checks that the<br>
nSequence of the input is lower than that parameter.<br>
<br>
Additionally, a new check at the transaction level:<br>
<span><br>
for (unsigned int i =3D 0; i < tx.vin.size(); i++) {<br>
// ...<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (coins->nHeight + tx=
.vin[i].nSequence < nSpendHeight)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 return state.Invali=
d(false, REJECT_INVALID,<br>
"bad-txns-non-final-input");<br>
// ...<br>
}<br>
<br>
Well, this is assuming that we're only using it with heights and not ti=
mestamps.<br>
Mark, feel free to elaborate further.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Does =
dropping timestamp refer just to RCLTV or absolutely CLTV also? For absolut=
e CLTV I think it's important to have timestamps so that trust fund use=
cases are practical (e.g. spendable on 18th birthday), because the exact d=
ate a future block will be mined on is unpredictable if it's far enough=
in the future (out by days or even weeks).<br></div><div><br></div></div><=
/div></div>
--047d7bfcf1de0de1ef05154af3c1--
|
