Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction replacement via sequence numbers

[Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

>
> As I believe out of all proposed protocols Satoshi's is still the most
> powerful, I would suggest that any change to the semantics on nSequence be
> gated by a high bit or something, so the original meaning remains available
> if/when resource scheduling and update flood damping are implemented. That
> way people can try it out and if miners are breaking things too frequently
> by ignoring the chronological ordering people can abandon protocols that
> rely on it, and if they aren't they can proceed and benefit from the
> greater flexibility.
>
>
Mike, this proposal was purposefully constructed to maintain as well as
possible the semantics of Satoshi's original construction. Higher sequence
numbers -- chronologically later transactions -- are able to hit the chain
earlier, and therefore it can be reasonably argued will be selected by
miners before the later transactions mature. Did I fail in some way to
capture that original intent?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1469 bytes --]