From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YxzZT-00037G-K0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 15:18:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.173; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YxzZS-00056v-Lb for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 15:18:11 +0000 Received: by qkhg32 with SMTP id g32so28186645qkh.0 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.107.165 with SMTP id h34mr3743104qgf.63.1432826285168; Thu, 28 May 2015 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:18:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Development Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1139594ec0ac55051725dd3e X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (tier.nolan[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 2.7 MALFORMED_FREEMAIL Bad headers on message from free email service -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YxzZS-00056v-Lb Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction replacement via sequence numbers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:18:11 -0000 --001a1139594ec0ac55051725dd3e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > Why 3? Do we have a version 2? > I meant whatever the next version is, so you are right, it's version 2. > As for doing it in serialization, that would alter the txid making it a > hard fork change. > The change is backwards compatible (since there is no restrictions on sequence numbers). This makes it a soft fork. That doesn't change the fact that you are changing what a field in the transaction represents. You could say that the sequence number is no longer encoded in the serialization, it is assumed to be 0xFFFFFFFF for all version 2+ transactions and the relative locktime is a whole new field that is the same size (and position). I think keeping some of the bytes for other uses is a good idea. The entire top 2 bytes could be ignored when working out relative locktime verify. That leaves them fully free to be set to anything. It could be that if the MSB of the bottom 2 bytes is set, then that activates the rule and the top 2 bytes are ignored. Are there any use-cases which need a RLTV of more than 8191 blocks delay (that can't be covered by the absolute version)? --001a1139594ec0ac55051725dd3e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:= 59 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:
=

Why 3? Do we have a version 2= ?

I meant whatever the next version is, so you are right, i= t's version 2.

As for doing it in serialization, that would alter the txid = making it a hard fork change.

The change is backwards = compatible (since there is no restrictions on sequence numbers).=C2=A0=C2= =A0 This makes it a soft fork.

That doesn't change the fact that= you are changing what a field in the transaction represents.

=
You could say that the sequence number is no longer encoded in the ser= ialization, it is assumed to be 0xFFFFFFFF for all version 2+ transactions = and the relative locktime is a whole new field that is the same size (and p= osition).

I think keeping some of the bytes for other use= s is a good idea.=C2=A0 The entire top 2 bytes could be ignored when workin= g out relative locktime verify.=C2=A0 That leaves them fully free to be set= to anything.=C2=A0

It could be that if the MSB of the bottom 2 byt= es is set, then that activates the rule and the top 2 bytes are ignored.
Are there any use-cases which need a RLTV of more than 8191= blocks delay (that can't be covered by the absolute version)?=C2=A0
--001a1139594ec0ac55051725dd3e--