public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV proposal)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 21:19:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpn-VdNQaMzKSA1tvGhhec3UxdGp-9x-U+ruTWd4ApbiA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztaJgUH81Bc1s4P45d2u-35Si7=7rON=UdZn4piycxHpw@mail.gmail.com>

Well, apparently the timestamp can be make compatible with Mark's
nSequence-based RCLTV by adding an additional check at the block level
but I was only explaining the concept using heights (which is the most
interesting part IMO).
I'm also not sure I understood the details and I don't want to confuse
people again, so I'll wait for someone else to explain that part.
ACLTV can work with timestamps too unless I'm missing something. It's
just more complexity and I was never convinced that there's enough use
cases relying on timestamps to justify them. But the timestamp
discussion is quite orthogonal to the nSequence-based RCLTV proposal
itself.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>> What I was describing was an attempt to fix a similar proposal by Mark
>> Friedenbach, but it didn't needed fixing: I was simply
>> misunderstanding it.
>> Mark's RCLTV is completely reorg safe, so there's no need for the 100
>> block restriction. It also keeps the script validation independent
>> from the utxo.
>> Here's is how it works:
>>
>> The operator takes a relative_height parameter and it checks that the
>> nSequence of the input is lower than that parameter.
>>
>> Additionally, a new check at the transaction level:
>>
>> for (unsigned int i = 0; i < tx.vin.size(); i++) {
>> // ...
>>             if (coins->nHeight + tx.vin[i].nSequence < nSpendHeight)
>>                 return state.Invalid(false, REJECT_INVALID,
>> "bad-txns-non-final-input");
>> // ...
>> }
>>
>> Well, this is assuming that we're only using it with heights and not
>> timestamps.
>> Mark, feel free to elaborate further.
>
>
> Does dropping timestamp refer just to RCLTV or absolutely CLTV also? For
> absolute CLTV I think it's important to have timestamps so that trust fund
> use cases are practical (e.g. spendable on 18th birthday), because the exact
> date a future block will be mined on is unpredictable if it's far enough in
> the future (out by days or even weeks).
>



  reply	other threads:[~2015-05-05 19:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-01 13:08 [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent a txout from being spent until an expiration time Peter Todd
2014-10-01 15:01 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-10-02  1:06   ` Peter Todd
2014-10-01 15:29 ` Sergio Lerner
2014-10-01 17:06   ` Peter Todd
2014-10-01 18:23 ` Luke Dashjr
2014-10-01 20:58   ` Gavin Andresen
2014-10-01 21:04     ` Alan Reiner
2014-10-01 21:34       ` Gavin Andresen
2014-10-02  0:12         ` Peter Todd
2014-10-02  0:05   ` Peter Todd
2014-10-02  0:55     ` Luke Dashjr
2014-10-02  1:09       ` Peter Todd
2014-10-02 15:05         ` Flavien Charlon
2014-10-03 14:28           ` Matt Whitlock
2014-10-03 14:30             ` Matt Whitlock
2014-10-03 16:17             ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-10-03 17:50             ` Luke Dashjr
2014-10-03 20:58               ` Mike Hearn
2014-10-03 23:12                 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-10-04  0:38                   ` Peter Todd
2014-10-04 12:58                     ` Mike Hearn
2014-10-07 15:50                       ` Gavin Andresen
2014-10-07 16:08                         ` Mike Hearn
2014-10-08 10:26                           ` Wladimir
2014-10-09  3:13                             ` Alan Reiner
2014-10-09  6:14                               ` Adam Back
2014-10-09  6:28                                 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-10-09  6:33                                   ` Peter Todd
2014-10-09  6:40                                     ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-10-08  4:07                         ` Tom Harding
2014-10-08 10:15                           ` Mike Hearn
2015-03-16 22:22 ` [Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV proposal) Matt Corallo
2015-03-19 17:39   ` Zooko Wilcox-OHearn
2015-04-21  7:59   ` Peter Todd
2015-04-26 11:35     ` Jorge Timón
2015-04-26 12:20       ` Jorge Timón
2015-04-27 19:35         ` Peter Todd
2015-04-28  7:44           ` Jorge Timón
2015-05-04  2:15     ` Matt Corallo
2015-05-04 11:24       ` Jorge Timón
2015-05-05  0:41         ` Btc Drak
2015-05-05 19:19           ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-05-05 20:38         ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-06  7:37           ` Jorge Timón
2015-05-06 22:09             ` Tier Nolan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CABm2gDpn-VdNQaMzKSA1tvGhhec3UxdGp-9x-U+ruTWd4ApbiA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=btcdrak@gmail.com \
    --cc=mark@friedenbach.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox