1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A63A886
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:05:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0120126
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:05:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so80743228wmu.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:05:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=C5edk59HJ5NXtL6I+G9BWrfOPGMGMolzzW++285HUBI=;
b=PzYKWEvPI1VZyVYySVCl/uBfPIfkqtCRAl5kCasCbu8vTV9R44X6ZehiSOJhRK/WQ+
Gt7/vcgObfQbLo0w9dumOUHw+ZgSq6Axjtfrtk+unfQ0j+UJZaKMFEHUkjrg4bYxeSiw
XV/DM+/3/DF0fQIDhaRatfvE615ZzTRpiC7Uk8Q7+4MIrQ/EYc4Bd/h52Hq/0D18PCcN
9NdouaXdIqCJ1r09busE0WIlPnyOBKDGt5UQsSlBMkXT97bVEFAj0bLBofM7Pzif2w+w
lulHCoSdO3dUzqdx6Bg6lT+9PfxlcYGC4sF1E10X8WrlYA4lsFNpvaFDmk/fW8dXsd6q
FZjA==
X-Received: by 10.28.23.136 with SMTP id 130mr21708269wmx.94.1448341551644;
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:05:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.61.135 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:05:32 -0800 (PST)
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
HTML_MESSAGE, 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP68: Second-level granularity doesn't make sense
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:05:53 -0000
--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>></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'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 "re-invention" often confirms good ideas :)</div><di=
v><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br></div></div>
--001a114700d0b304f50525424b38--
|
