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 6A376A04 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:21:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88FC91CF for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so121623944wgj.2 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bCM518Zzy1c/Ec2QCnm1KFZfe87jHhaxnuIhjl5mCys=; b=DNCLvR8J/zmSnKq6YxNgLNSoSwXMiswoRpiMeIMGTVla7giMNkBc45MDMRUlo25ufg TV71aVF5i1EaCiiqWiQEsGF9K0ojiJMCpGMTOlqr9Tb972BVte6Tbf+BPrL0XluheHWA aWqOmfSp/OhlNZh4T0gDnsen/LM9/zgT954uqxE/4Gm2fgwA6bOnDu/83WVKqgJ9PPs7 Em7qcOPjvmgZfYUEC2Tb74wU2YkoV01z0bEBK/OVRuIDN0hdlzrTW2C2mCIx38WPeq9z 3VveyZC0pmZUIlHJLm+/P/xwKqGs8YhXCSIYVoemNZ20LaPgHo7KcKVAZsdllwQGyPuW aAvQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.100.42 with SMTP id ev10mr81898204wjb.50.1436113304173; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.195.12.166 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.195.12.166 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55994696.1090705@thinlink.com> Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:21:44 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160aa485a4522051a232f90 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 68 (Relative Locktime) bug 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: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 16:21:47 -0000 --089e0160aa485a4522051a232f90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I would say yes. Just putting a locktime in transaction may help against fee sniping, even in transactions that are allowed to be mined at the same time as some of their dependencies? On Jul 5, 2015 6:17 PM, "Mark Friedenbach" wrote: > Can you construct an example? Are there use cases where there is a need > for an enforced lock time in a transaction with inputs that are not > confirmed at the time the lock time expires? > On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding" wrote: > >> BIP 68 uses nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also >> continues to condition the transaction-level locktime. >> >> This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an effective >> nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to be mined >> at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent. >> >> The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence = MAX_INT - 1 >> specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1. This change will also >> preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been created >> with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all >> transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in 0.11). >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --089e0160aa485a4522051a232f90 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would say yes. Just putting a locktime in transaction may = help against fee sniping, even in transactions that are allowed to be mined= at the same time as some of their dependencies?

On Jul 5, 2015 6:17 PM, "Mark Friedenbach&q= uot; <mark@friedenbach.org&g= t; wrote:

Can you construct an example? Are there use cases where there is a= need for an enforced lock time in a transaction with inputs that are not c= onfirmed at the time the lock time expires?

On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding" = <tomh@thinlink.co= m> wrote:
BIP= 68 uses nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also
continues to condition the transaction-level locktime.

This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an effective
nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to be mined
at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent.

The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence =3D MAX_INT - 1
specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1.=C2=A0 This change will also preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been created
with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all
transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in 0.11).


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--089e0160aa485a4522051a232f90--