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 1905620AD for ; 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 ; 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 To: Peter Todd , 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 02:00:03 -0000 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev 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.