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 C0D4674 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:13:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED915134 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so53816185wme.1 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:13:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=ILxBGAzB9VgXqU6dMP7Va5Ki+gaB3PKlgostpJAoHMg=; b=aQsFs4PGk+FdeW9vQbEjloTGSJAWiu50VHdr+2CqaSdIGfMIrIPrqwCJDq6nBNRr04 YRnk6E2SpKj5kKuxtOBQwRJnJmT+FoKJVcqArUYDEokPozmLOSrQI/e80bT2BGYLabZC mujXdOlM51gaiMAIW6VqWeeyqHvl9OerijydMosBzeBPnBq2rU/L5v/4/TnQEVYZSMp0 6UgevW1UFua6PNYK0vKUuYOBL4aWf0xoWkOQwh0wJnqEkpZYhUY79WE6R/TfV8thTMxx dj4r125GjWhGqsWdAXWhYyJxfK8+kYGMYsQ1q6ulUDQZS89nQ9zd2MKIkAw/+kh1WHwj xZXQ== X-Received: by 10.28.88.5 with SMTP id m5mr6359106wmb.54.1448115205329; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:13:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.61.135 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:13:05 -0800 (PST) From: Btc Drak Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:13:05 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11441eb8685a5105250d98f3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP68: Relative lock-time through consensus-enforced sequence numbers (update) 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: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:13:27 -0000 --001a11441eb8685a5105250d98f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 As I am sure you are aware, for the last 5 months work has been on-going to create a relative lock-time proposal using sequence numbers. The implementation can be found at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6312. The current implementation is "mempool-only" and the soft-fork would be deployed at a later stage. Over these months there has been various discussion back and forth to refine the details. I have updated the BIP text now according to the details that were discussed in mid-October[1][2] and have extensively clarified the text. To recap, the overall picture for relative lock-time is that BIP68 introduces consensus rules using some of the nSequence field, while BIP112 creates a new opcode OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (PR #6564) so relative lock-time can be verified from the Bitcoin scripting language. Ideally we would soft-fork BIP68, BIP112 (CSV) and 113 (MTP) together. BIP113 has been deployed in 0.11.2 as mempool policy so miners should be applying this policy as they deploy version 4 blocks for the ongoing CLTV soft-fork (currently at 42% at the time of writing). I am writing this mail to draw your attention to the BIP68 pull-requests and to request final review at: BIP68 text - https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/245 BIP68 implementation - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6312 Discussion references: [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011357.html [2] http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/10/15#l1444928045.0 --001a11441eb8685a5105250d98f3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As I am sure you are aware, for the last 5 months wor= k has been on-going to create a relative lock-time proposal using sequence = numbers. The implementation can be found at=C2=A0https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6312= . The current implementation is "mempool-only" and the soft-f= ork would be deployed at a later stage.

Over these= months there has been various discussion back and forth to refine the deta= ils.

I have updated the BIP text now according to = the details that were discussed in mid-October[1][2] and have extensively c= larified the text.

To recap, the overall picture f= or relative lock-time is that BIP68 introduces consensus rules using some o= f the nSequence field, while BIP112 creates a new opcode OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVE= RIFY (PR #6564) so relative lock-time can be verified from the Bitcoin scri= pting language. Ideally we would soft-fork BIP68, BIP112 (CSV) and 113 (MTP= ) together. BIP113 has been deployed in 0.11.2 as mempool policy so miners = should be applying this policy as they deploy version 4 blocks for the ongo= ing CLTV soft-fork (currently at 42% at the time of writing).

I am writing this mail to draw your attention to the BIP68 = pull-requests and to request final review at:

BIP68 tex= t - https://github.com= /bitcoin/bips/pull/245

Discussion references:
--001a11441eb8685a5105250d98f3--