MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150819212710.GA17777@lightning.network>
References: <CADJgMztgE_GkbrsP7zCEHNPA3P6T=aSFfhkcN-q=gVhWP0vKXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzv8G3EqLBwEYRHJZ+fO_Jwzy0koi2pJ_iNRkXmoVarGcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDod9z6ksgaCv86qFCyKLTQSL3+oNns+__5H77hVhs05DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-sbOcaogkic2i4A5eZnBQ79LUibsGy0dyKyvQg53ktY1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150819212710.GA17777@lightning.network>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:32:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrz7CYbKjd=4Fe+g06GdumOUh=HDN75YUmo6ixRnH+GcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for
 relative locktime
Precedence: list

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network> 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.