From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BEDC0051 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 04:19:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8508427261 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 04:19:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40Zon0bC+VwQ for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 04:19:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (mail.ruggedbytes.com [88.99.30.248]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4AEE20493 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 04:19:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ruggedbytes.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2722E260023D; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 04:19:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simplexum.com; s=mail; t=1600921141; bh=THSoFPf9dQAGAjmm6M/sciVx6X945KJNkzCTqLihSIY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=gOuHc3TBSfMJHfh0ukP4SvmNtFwYVB2A45OiArhVAW4gbAWuwnAh2m5FiZxW8L0b2 NY88vcc8BJmtJL1oiYJF/qa0E057+eNhtoX47J+cbCfkrxPYqqLCOEb09uViAhAj0Z QgqEx7fNAHtyPkJpEjIqlaEPgMCTnIlaeNnB41lI= Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:22:56 +0500 From: Dmitry Petukhov To: Jeremy via bitcoin-dev Message-ID: <20200924092256.5834511b@simplexum.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20200921145221.76bg5rnw7ohkm3ck@ganymede> Organization: simplexum.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 07:04:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Replacement for RBF and CPFP: Non-Destructive TXID Dependencies for Fee Sponsoring X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 04:19:05 -0000 =D0=92 Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:10:22 -0700 Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It's not particularly important that a transaction be in the same > block once sponsored, it could also be in the last 100 blocks (the > opposite of proposed change 3). This will in effect enable "inverse timelock" mechanism for up to 100 blocks for sponsor transactions: broadcast a transaction A, and then make a pre-signed sponsor transaction B that sponsors A. Transaction B will become invalid after 100 blocks due to this rule. If you put a timelock on B to make it valid after 50 blocks, then it will be valid between block 50 and 100 after A is confirmed.