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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9C237AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:32:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com
[209.85.217.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28B841EF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:32:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so11942301lbb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=Ed5iwCWtq3pl8nalwqFZTENKEo0t/HtyRWxzz7CcKOU=;
b=B9FYsLzXgxEXIiDbIQEnVS4zM3Rjb1JPu5am7iGPvX0meXgdY+LKwHW8c67qk4fJ99
YsQl1p0oW1ijepJC6tLfYVa2eb8x1vRWsgVK7Zl3FoWh0+smsKG7skKAzwq4T8+wLgs6
WK2vBCUVP/nYaQCNb0kNdIOJ1mkFFFDKDckA6Wro5yRpBmwTKewedzk1yMqUBjV/nkCn
E62ub13oeG7l/oIwWZmJPvm+QIhbAjBzceZjr9QS2KHR9rgHIomi+zzEtAOhSsd55QuW
cwSo9iiBWSY20cfFZSqeG93DNtnVOVwFjXzRR5pM15JWom9R97ts2EXNiN4Uzd5q1zRR
CvYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEds5/La5HkIH2mdx3We78TktutHUhiAwOMw2Zxx5Oqj69ePJPcORcz9gK+B1fpNdn0RyB
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.168.100 with SMTP id zv4mr6496974lbb.117.1440019977562;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150819212710.GA17777@lightning.network>
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>
<20150819212710.GA17777@lightning.network>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:32:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrz7CYbKjd=4Fe+g06GdumOUh=HDN75YUmo6ixRnH+GcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:33:00 -0000
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:21:36AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Tim??n <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179
>
> I am also indifferent, but also dislike technical debt.
>
> It should maybe be noted for those who wish to do/write-code-for mempool
> transaction selection (irrespective of one's opinion on it) that lower
> is better, since transactions with shorter relative locks are
> transactions with "higher priority".
That policy code should be simple to change, but thank you for pointing it out.
Also thank you for declaring your position (indifference) on the subject.
|
