From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1905620AD
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  6 Oct 2015 02:00:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7492C120
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  6 Oct 2015 02:00:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
	id 7886D140D84; Tue,  6 Oct 2015 13:00:00 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
In-Reply-To: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck>
References: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:28:49 +1030
Message-ID: <87lhbgn4fa.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to
	motivate the change
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 02:00:03 -0000

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

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

Cheers,
Rusty.