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
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3389C3A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:36:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com
[209.85.220.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FB25318
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:36:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkfh127 with SMTP id h127so109798693qkf.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
:content-type; bh=y2NkE2ujZhidAnoLChR7ZKse/5qdFzQ5xKVvKXQJESw=;
b=WkbGgmI4N1UvEHS/qEDPjJMhKRD/cYlwddceecdzIkiP/bQ9FiXbM+7qPIEWnocXAF
q4l1Tj4N+BTCBtpEI+4V4B9hkmXK4+WXrSHralfzwVmEnw20abgdVxgsEPJBnLBibJ/o
ID6brP2ji0uvkFD4QozWQ8jEoDX/HLAW5EhfaAzMDonEfPFizHdCkpjf94/Fb+VQxpqn
iuFpsvSjFxmY43pg/KHZBaSqY7WaXIFPBALxvD1WoObUzjo0V7DE4ZTYpKuMWMH5okSJ
5CV5iT2m0d3Ukhddq8M6l1dQ66SE+nSIOAMTKQcC82Zhn0uuNC6jpYpkWHNiQzhxp/TW
Xytw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.15.30 with SMTP id z30mr52321714qkg.47.1440542183783;
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.31.181 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-to4Vrx4ykKJTy5EAyN4GZd6Q=G5FzqZH-5J3Thz_VNpQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
<55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com>
<CAAS2fgQKQpHu-nC1uSrigDx2JLUt64p-LqidVmiuULDE0MJCFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqW7OGuyZ1BTTeeivDf9wFVsAK9AaGYm8XWwLb2O2Lb+g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-ubk3nPfxy25Hd6kPeehf7vnYD5chksLWU5wU2t=jL5TA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-to4Vrx4ykKJTy5EAyN4GZd6Q=G5FzqZH-5J3Thz_VNpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:36:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OVFiiDmjVTnFZPTQEbRQK69ZiVkHwXrJ4QS211JeTb9=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ad6482602ff051e2a5d4c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:36:25 -0000
--001a113ad6482602ff051e2a5d4c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Assuming a maximum of 1-year relative lock-times. But what is an
> appropriate maximum to choose? The use cases I have considered have only
> had lock times on the order of a few days to a month or so. However I would
> feel uncomfortable going less than a year for a hard maximum, and am having
> trouble thinking of any use case that would require more than a year of
> lock-time. Can anyone else think of a use case that requires >1yr relative
> lock-time?
>
>
The main advantage of relative locktime over absolute locktime is in
situations when it is not possible to determine when the clock should
start. This inherently means lower delays.
As a workaround, you could chain transactions to extend the relative
locktime.
Transaction B has to be 360 days after transaction A and then transaction C
has to be 360 days after transaction B and C must be an input into the
final transaction.
The chain could be built up with multi-sig, like the refund transaction
system, so no one person can create an alternative chain.
--001a113ad6482602ff051e2a5d4c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrot=
e:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div></div><div>Assum=
ing a maximum of 1-year relative lock-times. But what is an appropriate max=
imum to choose? The use cases I have considered have only had lock times on=
the order of a few days to a month or so. However I would feel uncomfortab=
le going less than a year for a hard maximum, and am having trouble thinkin=
g of any use case that would require more than a year of lock-time. Can any=
one else think of a use case that requires >1yr relative lock-time?<br><=
/div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The main advantage of relat=
ive locktime over absolute locktime is in situations when it is not possibl=
e to determine when the clock should start.=C2=A0=C2=A0 This inherently mea=
ns lower delays.<br><br></div><div></div>As a workaround, you could chain t=
ransactions to extend the relative locktime.<br><div><br></div><div>Transac=
tion B has to be 360 days after transaction A and then transaction C has to=
be 360 days after transaction B and C must be an input into the final tran=
saction.<br><br>The chain could be built up with multi-sig, like the refund=
transaction system, so no one person can create an alternative chain.<br><=
/div></div></div></div>
--001a113ad6482602ff051e2a5d4c--
|
