From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:37:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-ubk3nPfxy25Hd6kPeehf7vnYD5chksLWU5wU2t=jL5TA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqW7OGuyZ1BTTeeivDf9wFVsAK9AaGYm8XWwLb2O2Lb+g@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1164 bytes --]
A power of 2 would be far more efficient here. The key question is how long
of a relative block time do you need? Figure out what the maximum should be
( I don't know what that would be, any ideas?) and then see how many bits
you have left over.
On Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, "Jorge Timón" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1714 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-24 2:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-13 11:06 [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime Btc Drak
2015-08-13 18:12 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-13 19:20 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-08-13 23:42 ` Joseph Poon
2015-08-14 0:47 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-14 18:53 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-14 21:29 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-14 22:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-17 19:58 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-19 10:37 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 16:21 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-19 21:27 ` Joseph Poon
2015-08-19 21:32 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20 21:23 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-24 0:25 ` Tom Harding
2015-08-24 1:01 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-08-24 2:23 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-24 2:37 ` Mark Friedenbach [this message]
2015-08-25 22:08 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-25 22:36 ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-27 23:32 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-09-16 22:40 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-16 23:23 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-09-17 4:23 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-09-18 1:21 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-17 7:43 ` jl2012
2015-08-24 2:40 ` jl2012
2015-08-24 2:54 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-24 7:00 ` jl2012
2015-08-25 10:15 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-27 3:08 ` Rusty Russell
2015-08-27 11:03 ` David A. Harding
2015-08-27 12:29 ` jl2012
2015-08-30 21:33 ` Rusty Russell
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='CAOG=w-ubk3nPfxy25Hd6kPeehf7vnYD5chksLWU5wU2t=jL5TA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mark@friedenbach.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
/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