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 49EBC86 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:23:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B46E5 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:23:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbpu9 with SMTP id pu9so71295580lbb.3 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:23:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tq2HdfcJFOu2+E1fgpFL4SBr/6qdyBAvXahywTDmuqw=; b=BYWAHz3lna4RIZNoN+DcO9TtsTtyuYf7lA+gJ+41aPIjLwyk3oDad8bnYXfbhkEDYi NZuxHNeC1mh+cqwP66eiqztBXNN9ZolVneEkRl5i4cqZbzJorlZlT+Ek0stxppbri33U V4wo3khSMZ518glBA7baXTXBuZpVm8pViOLZSXeYaIAaZG9z/Zp7ocSByEof4sxKG49x bxLiajUwTPl//Rmg7Tx/kGHvfpWiAKAaZprzkEB94UsHIeQgDPpXqsxzu/P9dtDI2ONv 7ciCU3HxHuZlcr0nOrvnPQ8mn3a0nVBv8H5GqkNV2hqNW2R6VHbaHPc52Na+Tq7LCla/ 3g1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQSR7vpkHe+Zy8Balx9vax2YhWHia5PoGXMC9UZTfhp77hVzCAvdhXcfwn2xwkHBxXVSfE MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.219.3 with SMTP id pk3mr18091314lac.114.1440382985311; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:23:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55DA6470.9040301@thinlink.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 04:23:05 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 02:23:09 -0000 On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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. No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1". He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps.