Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E280A7F for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:21:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE5F63 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:21:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so14989354iod.0 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:21:56 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Dwi6boi52PbE4TprngUHAxwHCeg6e5zYFo6ZgokDr88=; b=PsrKhD5fAWeb2MAUSrd0LttBxinfjwNsLK+tH2AbrlnKGlm452ihczcj24E2bL7LbY DHB9LaBkfgQz2VQtQm3KhoBT0T+5irzDpTHyaPltRRC93uuEu8OZ8z94k7VkaPyxGGDf Ylcm+LaVdgyQdiLBKB2oCEnFfEKhibxavw/reqDdhmSUwbmX3Jz/maZ5xp5eF3K+SeYg bcluYNxsvzlbrmKhg3V8tbGEbrBGv4VYT5zmXJifOHEB4lsTn9z4tHZZYGXBPUfcX8XU JSbu/Su6WEAXiiAPwAsJc0nJC7oR/jK5MxLP4cAGB8Y9EUXvSHZnWOhzEy7BeBUyYB8T B0Pg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm497eFn5dyekrhoe3CcCGYCbPNqc4DWBYEQUAdax6fgWwLxI09SY7xLlQ1/VPwHwOM7NvH X-Received: by 10.107.11.67 with SMTP id v64mr14854490ioi.105.1440001316394; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:21:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:21:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37] In-Reply-To: References: From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:21:36 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f9694f0b7db051dac6eab X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,UC_GIBBERISH_OBFU autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:21:58 -0000 --001a113f9694f0b7db051dac6eab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am indifferent on this issue (the bit inversion), but so far only Jorge has spoken up. I opted for this detail during implementation in order to preserve existing semantics, even if those semantics are not commonly used. This was the conservative choice, driven in part because I didn't want the proposal to be held up by the other side saying "this is confusing because it changes how sequence numbers work! it used to count up but now it counts down!" I can see both sides and as I said I'm indifferent, so I went with the conservative choice of not messing with existing semantics. However if there is strong preferences from _multiple_ people on this matter it is not too late to change. If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179 > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Please note there is now a PR for this BIP[1] and also a pull request f= or > > the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core[2]. > > > > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179 > > [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113f9694f0b7db051dac6eab Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am indifferent on this issue (the bit inversion), b= ut so far only Jorge has spoken up. I opted for this detail during implemen= tation in order to preserve existing semantics, even if those semantics are= not commonly used. This was the conservative choice, driven in part becaus= e I didn't want the proposal to be held up by the other side saying &qu= ot;this is confusing because it changes how sequence numbers work! it used = to count up but now it counts down!"

I can see both sides= and as I said I'm indifferent, so I went with the conservative choice = of not messing with existing semantics. However if there is strong preferen= ces from _multiple_ people on this matter it is not too late to change. If = anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM,= Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= rg> wrote:
I repeated my ni= t on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179


On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Please note there is now a PR for this BIP[1] and also a pull request = for
> the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core[2].
>
> [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179
> [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564
>
>
> __________________= _____________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113f9694f0b7db051dac6eab--