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 763D1A7B for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:43:21 +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 C9DD6E2 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:43:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id C1F14140280; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:43:18 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: jl2012@xbt.hk In-Reply-To: <153ca520525adc59935e6ef4c57fd7a0@xbt.hk> References: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com> <85537faedb1e601d243e3edb666fa844@xbt.hk> <87k2shig1x.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <153ca520525adc59935e6ef4c57fd7a0@xbt.hk> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:03:57 +0930 Message-ID: <87r3mkh35m.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:43:21 -0000 jl2012@xbt.hk writes: > Rusty Russell =E6=96=BC 2015-08-26 23:08 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0: >> - We should immediately deploy an IsStandard() rule which insists that >> nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF or 0, so nobody screws themselves when we >> soft fork and they had random junk in there. > > This is not needed because BIP68 is not active for version 1 tx. No=20 > existing wallet would be affected. Ah thanks! I missed the version bump in BIP68. >> Aside: I'd also like to have nLockTime apply even if nSequence !=3D >> 0xFFFFFFFF (another mistake I made). So I'd like an IsStandard() rule >> to say it nLockTime be 0 if an nSequence !=3D 0xFFFFFFFF. Would that >> screw anyone currently? > > Do you mean "have nLockTime apply even if nSequence =3D 0xFFFFFFFF"? This= =20 > is a softfork. Should we do this together with BIP65, BIP68 and BIP112? Yes, but Mark pointed out that it has uses, so I withdraw the suggestion. Thanks, Rusty.