public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP68: Second-level granularity doesn't make sense
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:05:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADJgMzscFPjY5tSPkZgp-Vkd7GraaeQ85qrYU2OHXEfKUSCYkg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151124043618.GA7999@muck>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 981 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The downside of BIP68 as written is users of by-height locktimes have 14
> bits unused in nSequence, but by-time locktimes have just 5 bits unused.
> This presents an awkward situation if we add new meanings to nSequence
> if we ever need more than 5 bits. Yet as shown above, the extra
> granularity doesn't have a practical benefit.
>
>
> Recommendation: Change BIP68 to make by-time locks have the same number
> of bits as by-height locks, and multiply the by-time lock field by the
> block interval.
>

I think you might be referring to the old specification. I believe this was
brought up before and the specification was changed so the same number of
bits were used for by-time and by-height. Please see
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/245

However, I am glad you came to the came conclusions independently because
"re-invention" often confirms good ideas :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1544 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-24  5:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-24  4:36 [bitcoin-dev] BIP68: Second-level granularity doesn't make sense Peter Todd
2015-11-24  5:05 ` Btc Drak [this message]
2015-11-24  5:58   ` Peter Todd

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=CADJgMzscFPjY5tSPkZgp-Vkd7GraaeQ85qrYU2OHXEfKUSCYkg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=btcdrak@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=pete@petertodd.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