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 A88C1FF for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:40:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18DDD178 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55597 helo=server47.web-hosting.com) by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZThgv-0020e8-4n; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:40:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:40:56 -0400 From: jl2012@xbt.hk To: Gregory Maxwell In-Reply-To: References: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com> Message-ID: <85537faedb1e601d243e3edb666fa844@xbt.hk> X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: jl2012@xbt.hk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:40:58 -0000 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-23 21:01 寫到: > > Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the > discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more > than one increment? This would leave additional space for future > signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a > sharechain commitement. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev I think this comment is more related to BIP68 instead of OP_CSV? Without further complicating the BIP68, I believe the best way to leave room for improvement is to spend a bit in tx nVersion to indicate the activation of BIP68. I have raised this issue before with http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010043.html However, it seems Mark isn't in favor of my proposal The idea is not to permanently change the meaning of nSequence. Actually, BIP68 is "only enforced if the most significant bit of the sequence number field is set." So BIP68 is optional, anyway. All I suggest is to move the flag from nSequence to nVersion. However, this will leave much bigger room for using nSequence for other purpose in the future. AFAIK, nSequence is the only user definable and signed element in TxIn. There could be more interesting use of this field and we should not change its meaning permanently. (e.g. if nSequence had 8 bytes instead of 4 bytes, it could be used to indicate the value of the input to fix this problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0 )