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 4DF939C for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:01:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9FFA115 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:01:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so132627911iod.2 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KWNvPZ8gkpOhm1sLeKx7gpFg+Sg8WcGDDp3Qu0gVxh8=; b=HnthXVnyP72RbkNbJWuvBwZWCv0gQUKj7bv+1W8z0Hs7wdkcFypMZiqF/kE0Y1fnrJ Z/X7sx18NrpNuLqHHNtJJFeC4YvNY+0Vj44MfR5MUKvVkwq4TXGuLF9oo0fJf3pfqcKH yhoCaqrdU+VHcRB253bSecM1HTB88Tf6APv6UGGiek5Rylma1obZs08zDhXU1gS3JLEl 2nODI/jgmY+oJl/AdThd9Ch4WizCu8J+t9ZOeGVeKDtXQ/bcHqLun/uh3JBRNMALT78x xtVM5kT9/PSHUmwx3nNmWWrvUQZkmugizF+F/Ptw03Su7l9AvzMgytG1SKC17xnJVZIJ ftHw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.132.146 with SMTP id o18mr16451291ioi.134.1440378086285; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.14.136 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com> References: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:01:26 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Tom Harding Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 01:01:27 -0000 On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation of > existing semantics. > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html I can't follow this logic. Can you help? The existing semantics, to the extent that they exist at all is that the earliest version starts with the lowest sequence number then counts up (and if it makes its way to the highest number, the result is final-- because it could go no higher). Thats the semantics 'the inversion' accomplishes for CSV: the that the first version of a transaction begins with a smaller number which successful versions increase, and the highest possible number is final (no delay, because no delay is the shortest delay). 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.