From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C97078FE for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:27:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5941B1F3 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacdd16 with SMTP id dd16so2922416pac.2 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:27:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lightning.network; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=+cf6k58vNYAn0PRqEwvaNHXKrImSZ4GunbktNlCv+pE=; b=CZcVbv87UZqRtrZlGUkcHVcCd4OqDxHaHM/p3VSpwgxSdi8Xrj4/KgrEuP245MKk4/ 56v94FjBYmRNGncfMoHunfjFzNQOwc9jAL9UCn6AVxEg7+acTUEFDEn04PqZcKx2wT2e NvTN+r6qAD/9q17HF4Mu2R+WSdM9q4tycRBA4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=+cf6k58vNYAn0PRqEwvaNHXKrImSZ4GunbktNlCv+pE=; b=GoYpDX2LkxY3V+bwCKEUOTu7+Sd6bsFK6jlYx1OWWFn8jRfRS1F+tGq0yKQTuS5EK+ kMVtpQLpidVEeY1FN2poANvq64/C4uNl448Ih4CWVi2+Gkkr3Lm+UvXy4hH0xd1VCDOp p1AZXJhlTNy1sR89h0HgCvV7OfisX0Mt7jyUhsBom2DFAAMcoSQHzNSSYk9N87ZOeVsV yuuOAYJvI2VQ1RVsVoDjXPpDGWxu6S6384sccHpW3qZvwsetLGp4XkReH7cdbVT5dGEf Su5JWr4g4IYIghABNCTbCJC9aHvpQ4zqQrG5nQBJI9M2MnRW6k4qsc11p0Rywbq5/mkN 46jA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkG8VMb3NWo8F50ibrI3AsQw4v3VfJKknLFEOCQzvVyAk1GDW28acbu9ISQM/ouFrzzyZrt X-Received: by 10.68.190.10 with SMTP id gm10mr28539816pbc.5.1440019634953; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([4.16.40.19]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm1906781pdk.61.2015.08.19.14.27.14 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:27:10 -0700 From: Joseph Poon To: Mark Friedenbach Message-ID: <20150819212710.GA17777@lightning.network> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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 21:27:15 -0000 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". -- Joseph Poon