public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to motivate the change
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:41:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151008174120.GA9291@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lhbgn4fa.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

[-- 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 --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-08 17:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-03 14:30 [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to motivate the change Peter Todd
2015-10-03 18:49 ` jl2012
2015-10-04  8:35 ` Anthony Towns
2015-10-04 12:04   ` s7r
2015-10-05 22:03     ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-06  0:19       ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-10-06 11:09         ` Peter Todd
2015-10-06  0:28 ` Btc Drak
2015-10-06  1:58 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-08 17:41   ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-10-09  1:38     ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-15 13:47       ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-15 16:27         ` Btc Drak
2015-10-15 16:37           ` Adam Back
2015-10-15 16:41             ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-15 18:31             ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-10-15 23:18           ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-16  1:26             ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-19 10:43               ` Jorge Timón
2015-10-06 20:00 ` Joseph Poon
2015-10-08 17:43 ` Peter Todd

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151008174120.GA9291@muck \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox