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 9F08BA04 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:25:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3421CE for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pactm7 with SMTP id tm7so82245622pac.2 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:25:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=2Qs9+6CMn+U4iJqs/FpC4MVhyfl7AH43Z7Yb+qt9ugo=; b=Zc1Mc/DxplfDDlEtr5zv8EpvjpStc5RppVxA62qB3wmemE0ThnLgk5lFzwOKXlT6by 5tPmHHxiX4ao4LeGbWHi5DQ0oMplzoaJuKEgqad2+4ZcnNhQ6CU8BkklE20AhOJlwY7W 7Zdnz+Lr4l+hZ1IgRS/r55ywGi7cnZScyl3r3l/iXRbm2HGWMrrjkQWZIdUtBx5+x3+w 42jqxsIiAT/BgHZX6pqXX1wN4mX6Qesc9raaseHxKmxVhzh0b+a1ZVISuHNklSmDH+KH Gc9tzcGp43YWlkJbaI4RF3PejTl6WDfCPrfg7sEZc6rjFnPyN+N5LKpu+nCwxHX6wgkd VLlw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5op6aDpg+9KQ6p54a3ehEzMx9GxLYercGkTtNF2zJZZDOMPJY9BYMXUUqaPR7Z3TltzoS X-Received: by 10.66.229.65 with SMTP id so1mr96386681pac.92.1436113516650; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ml6sm15325306pdb.69.2015.07.05.09.25.14 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55995A6D.8090703@thinlink.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:25:17 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Friedenbach References: <55994696.1090705@thinlink.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020504080806030408030003" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 68 (Relative Locktime) bug 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: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 16:25:17 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020504080806030408030003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since you're removing a working capability, you should be the one to prove it is unneeded. But the simple example is the case where the input is also locked. On 7/5/2015 9:17 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > Can you construct an example? Are there use cases where there is a > need for an enforced lock time in a transaction with inputs that are > not confirmed at the time the lock time expires? > > On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding" > wrote: > > BIP 68 uses nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also > continues to condition the transaction-level locktime. > > This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an effective > nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to be > mined > at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent. > > The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence = MAX_INT - 1 > specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1. This change will also > preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been created > with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all > transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in 0.11). > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --------------020504080806030408030003 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Since you're removing a working capability, you should be the one to prove it is unneeded.

But the simple example is the case where the input is also locked.


On 7/5/2015 9:17 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:

Can you construct an example? Are there use cases where there is a need for an enforced lock time in a transaction with inputs that are not confirmed at the time the lock time expires?

On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding" <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
BIP 68 uses nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also
continues to condition the transaction-level locktime.

This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an effective
nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to be mined
at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent.

The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence = MAX_INT - 1
specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1.  This change will also
preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been created
with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all
transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in 0.11).


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------020504080806030408030003--