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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DF939C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:01:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com
[209.85.223.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9FFA115
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so132627911iod.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=KWNvPZ8gkpOhm1sLeKx7gpFg+Sg8WcGDDp3Qu0gVxh8=;
b=HnthXVnyP72RbkNbJWuvBwZWCv0gQUKj7bv+1W8z0Hs7wdkcFypMZiqF/kE0Y1fnrJ
Z/X7sx18NrpNuLqHHNtJJFeC4YvNY+0Vj44MfR5MUKvVkwq4TXGuLF9oo0fJf3pfqcKH
yhoCaqrdU+VHcRB253bSecM1HTB88Tf6APv6UGGiek5Rylma1obZs08zDhXU1gS3JLEl
2nODI/jgmY+oJl/AdThd9Ch4WizCu8J+t9ZOeGVeKDtXQ/bcHqLun/uh3JBRNMALT78x
xtVM5kT9/PSHUmwx3nNmWWrvUQZkmugizF+F/Ptw03Su7l9AvzMgytG1SKC17xnJVZIJ
ftHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.132.146 with SMTP id o18mr16451291ioi.134.1440378086285;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.14.136 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com>
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>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:01:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQKQpHu-nC1uSrigDx2JLUt64p-LqidVmiuULDE0MJCFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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] [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 <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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:01:27 -0000
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation of
> existing semantics.
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html
I can't follow this logic. Can you help? The existing semantics, to
the extent that they exist at all is that the earliest version starts
with the lowest sequence number then counts up (and if it makes its
way to the highest number, the result is final-- because it could go
no higher).
Thats the semantics 'the inversion' accomplishes for CSV: the that the
first version of a transaction begins with a smaller number which
successful versions increase, and the highest possible number is final
(no delay, because no delay is the shortest delay).
Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the
discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more
than one increment? This would leave additional space for future
signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a
sharechain commitement.
|
