Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9C237AA for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:32:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28B841EF for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so11942301lbb.1 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:32:57 -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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ed5iwCWtq3pl8nalwqFZTENKEo0t/HtyRWxzz7CcKOU=; b=B9FYsLzXgxEXIiDbIQEnVS4zM3Rjb1JPu5am7iGPvX0meXgdY+LKwHW8c67qk4fJ99 YsQl1p0oW1ijepJC6tLfYVa2eb8x1vRWsgVK7Zl3FoWh0+smsKG7skKAzwq4T8+wLgs6 WK2vBCUVP/nYaQCNb0kNdIOJ1mkFFFDKDckA6Wro5yRpBmwTKewedzk1yMqUBjV/nkCn E62ub13oeG7l/oIwWZmJPvm+QIhbAjBzceZjr9QS2KHR9rgHIomi+zzEtAOhSsd55QuW cwSo9iiBWSY20cfFZSqeG93DNtnVOVwFjXzRR5pM15JWom9R97ts2EXNiN4Uzd5q1zRR CvYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEds5/La5HkIH2mdx3We78TktutHUhiAwOMw2Zxx5Oqj69ePJPcORcz9gK+B1fpNdn0RyB MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.168.100 with SMTP id zv4mr6496974lbb.117.1440019977562; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:32:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150819212710.GA17777@lightning.network> References: <20150819212710.GA17777@lightning.network> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:32:57 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Joseph Poon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham 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 21:33:00 -0000 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Joseph Poon wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:21:36AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up. >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Tim??n < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179 > > I am also indifferent, but also dislike technical debt. > > It should maybe be noted for those who wish to do/write-code-for mempool > transaction selection (irrespective of one's opinion on it) that lower > is better, since transactions with shorter relative locks are > transactions with "higher priority". That policy code should be simple to change, but thank you for pointing it out. Also thank you for declaring your position (indifference) on the subject.