Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05 📝 Original message:I would say yes. Just ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05
📝 Original message: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" <mark at friedenbach.org> 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" <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
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> 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/f360820c/attachment.html>;