Re: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to motivate the change

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:28:49PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> writes:
> > However I don't think we've done a good job showing why we need to
> > implement this feature via nSequence.
> 
> It could be implemented in other ways, but nSequence is the neatest and
> most straightforward I've seen.
> 
> - I'm not aware of any other (even vague) proposal for its use?  Enlighten?

There's three that immediately come to mind:

Gregory Maxwell has proposed it as a way of discouraging miners from
reorging chains, by including some of the low-order bits of a previous
block header in nSequence.

A few people have proposed implementing proof-of-stake blocksize voting
with nSequence.

> - BIP68 reserves much of it for future use already.

Well, a few low-order bits, if you want to use RCLTV functionality; pure
RCLTV would save a lot more bits.

> If we apply infinite caution we could never use nSequence, as there
> might be a better use tommorrow.

Indeed! But lets make sure we have a good argument in the BIP.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000de60f807a5fd32057510e7715038ecbc888052861b6a5c1

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]