Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05 📝 Original message:Or you could flip the ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05
📝 Original message:Or you could flip the definition of your activation bit. That would
avoid the inversion and put relative locktimes outside the realm of both
the MAX_INT and MAX_INT - 1 values.

It would also allow an explicit relative locktime of 0, which would help
applications avoid accidentally finalizing the whole transaction when
they only meant to not impose a relative locktime on one input.


On 7/5/2015 10:07 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Note that you can put 0 in the sequence number field and it would work
> just as expected under the old rules. I will perhaps suggest instead
> that Bitcoin Core post-0.11 switch to doing this instead for that case.
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Tom Harding <tomh at thinlink.com
> <mailto:tomh at thinlink.com>> 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150705/c0628db2/attachment.html>;