From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: jl2012@xbt.hk
In-Reply-To: <153ca520525adc59935e6ef4c57fd7a0@xbt.hk>
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>
	<55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com>
	<CAAS2fgQKQpHu-nC1uSrigDx2JLUt64p-LqidVmiuULDE0MJCFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<85537faedb1e601d243e3edb666fa844@xbt.hk>
	<CAOG=w-vXFcq1bCkviWOK8nh5wz77tYy9hbLXCn8nGLzNRTSgOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<d7ba4da921d3ab55dc774dbd78c21744@xbt.hk>
	<CADJgMzsLU5tQDLp0NWDwE6S476PdwvrOWOpn8oQ+5JPyoyi8gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87k2shig1x.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<153ca520525adc59935e6ef4c57fd7a0@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:03:57 +0930
Message-ID: <87r3mkh35m.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for
	relative locktime
Precedence: list

jl2012@xbt.hk writes:
> Rusty Russell =E6=96=BC 2015-08-26 23:08 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:
>> - We should immediately deploy an IsStandard() rule which insists that
>>   nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF or 0, so nobody screws themselves when we
>>   soft fork and they had random junk in there.
>
> This is not needed because BIP68 is not active for version 1 tx. No=20
> existing wallet would be affected.

Ah thanks!  I missed the version bump in BIP68.

>> Aside: I'd also like to have nLockTime apply even if nSequence !=3D
>> 0xFFFFFFFF (another mistake I made).  So I'd like an IsStandard() rule
>> to say it nLockTime be 0 if an nSequence !=3D 0xFFFFFFFF.  Would that
>> screw anyone currently?
>
> Do you mean "have nLockTime apply even if nSequence =3D 0xFFFFFFFF"? This=
=20
> is a softfork. Should we do this together with BIP65, BIP68 and BIP112?

Yes, but Mark pointed out that it has uses, so I withdraw the
suggestion.

Thanks,
Rusty.