Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 16:30:56 +0200
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS"
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to
	motivate the change
Precedence: list


--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BIP68 and BIP112 collectively define the CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY semantics,
which can be summarized conceptually as a relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
However, CSV does define behavior for the previously undefined nSequence
field, which is the only "free-form" field we currently have in the
transaction serialization format that can be used for future upgrades -
we should justify this new behavior carefully as it limits our options
in the future. Adding new fields to the serialization format is very
difficult, due to the very broad system-wide impact of the hard-fork
required to do so.

So we need to make the case for two main things:

1) We have applications that need a relative (instead of absolute CLTV)

2) Additionally to RCLTV, we need to implement this via nSequence

To show we need RCLTV BIP112 provides the example "Escrow with Timeout",
which is a need that was brought up by GreenAddress, among others; I
don't think we have an issue there, though getting more examples would
be a good thing. (the CLTV BIP describes seven use cases, and one
additional future use-case)

However I don't think we've done a good job showing why we need to
implement this feature via nSequence. BIP68 describes the new nSequence
semantics, and gives the rational for them as being a
"Consensus-enforced tx replacement" mechanism, with a bidirectional
payment channel as an example of this in action. However, the
bidirectional payment channel concept itself can be easily implemented
with CLTV alone. There is a small drawback in that the initial
transaction could be delayed, reducing the overall time the channel
exists, but the protocol already assumes that transactions can be
reliably confirmed within a day - significantly less than the proposed
30 days duration of the channel. That example alone I don't think
justifies a fairly complex soft-fork that limits future upgrades; we
need more justification.

So, what else can the community come up with? nSequence itself exists
because of a failed feature that turned out to not work as intended;
it'd be a shame to make that kind of mistake again, so let's get our
semantics and use-cases in the BIPs and documented before we deploy.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ea95b4a24d0a510d4b5a98186f904dc16da07c41189d8b8

--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=O9ap
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS--