MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151124043618.GA7999@muck>
References: <20151124043618.GA7999@muck>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:05:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzscFPjY5tSPkZgp-Vkd7GraaeQ85qrYU2OHXEfKUSCYkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114700d0b304f50525424b38
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP68: Second-level granularity doesn't make sense
Precedence: list

--001a114700d0b304f50525424b38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

I think you might be referring to the old specification. I believe this was
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

However, I am glad you came to the came conclusions independently because
"re-invention" often confirms good ideas :)

--001a114700d0b304f50525424b38
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-widt=
h:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">The downside of BIP68 as written is users of by-height locktimes ha=
ve 14<br>
bits unused in nSequence, but by-time locktimes have just 5 bits unused.<br=
>
This presents an awkward situation if we add new meanings to nSequence<br>
if we ever need more than 5 bits. Yet as shown above, the extra<br>
granularity doesn&#39;t have a practical benefit.<br>
<br>
<br>
Recommendation: Change BIP68 to make by-time locks have the same number<br>
of bits as by-height locks, and multiply the by-time lock field by the<br>
block interval.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you might be re=
ferring to the old specification. I believe this was brought up before and =
the specification was changed so the same number of bits were used for by-t=
ime and by-height. Please see=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bi=
ps/pull/245">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/245</a>=C2=A0</div><div><=
br></div><div>However, I am glad you came to the came conclusions independe=
ntly because &quot;re-invention&quot; often confirms good ideas :)</div><di=
v><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br></div></div>

--001a114700d0b304f50525424b38--