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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAD4485
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:58:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148095.authsmtp.com (outmail148095.authsmtp.com
[62.13.148.95])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12192126
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:58:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt23.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tAO5wkPR098518;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:58:46 GMT
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tAO5wfCK028303
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:58:43 GMT
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:58:40 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20151124055840.GA5942@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20151124043618.GA7999@muck>
<CADJgMzscFPjY5tSPkZgp-Vkd7GraaeQ85qrYU2OHXEfKUSCYkg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzscFPjY5tSPkZgp-Vkd7GraaeQ85qrYU2OHXEfKUSCYkg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 6b8c8af1-9270-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAYUFloCAgsB AmMbW1FeVVV7XWc7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRW1+ A1lIIWJydQ1FeH0+ YEFrWD5dDkwpfRcr
Q1NdF2oGeGZhPWUC WEJRIh5UcAJPfxhM bwR6UXVDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aCA1cwJACX0GFTk6 S1UGECsiGQUKXSw1
MhgvMF8ADQ4dNUgp NxQ9EVcRMBJaEQBY BEwl
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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] BIP68: Second-level granularity doesn't make sense
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:58:49 -0000
--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:05:32AM +0000, Btc Drak wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> > The downside of BIP68 as written is users of by-height locktimes have 14
> > bits unused in nSequence, but by-time locktimes have just 5 bits unused.
> > This presents an awkward situation if we add new meanings to nSequence
> > if we ever need more than 5 bits. Yet as shown above, the extra
> > granularity doesn't have a practical benefit.
> >
> >
> > Recommendation: Change BIP68 to make by-time locks have the same number
> > of bits as by-height locks, and multiply the by-time lock field by the
> > block interval.
> >
>=20
> I think you might be referring to the old specification. I believe this w=
as
> brought up before and the specification was changed so the same number of
> bits were used for by-time and by-height. Please see
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/245
>=20
> However, I am glad you came to the came conclusions independently because
> "re-invention" often confirms good ideas :)
Ha, that's awesome! Looks like we're pretty much on the same page re:
granularity.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000003c0cf6b89d2a9b68a8cedbd3935962203c21663925c714b
--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=14i+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--
|
