Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5EC14F2 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C013B269 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 0CEE4140A9A; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:24:37 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Mark Friedenbach , Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: References: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com> <4E3B7469-1018-4649-8DF1-6597F82774F1@gmail.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:51:19 +0930 Message-ID: <876138ikts.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Btc Drak via 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: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:41 -0000 Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev writes: > Eric, that would be, I think, my sequencenumbers2 branch in which nSequence > is an explicit relative lock-time field (unless the most significant bit is > set). That has absolutely clear semantics. You should comment on #6312 > where this is being discussed. Indeed. Simplicity wins. We have half the number space left for the future, too. If people are paranoid, reserve the top *two* bits. Thanks, Rusty.