Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05 📝 Original message:Note that you can put 0 in ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05
📝 Original message: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> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150705/eb52ca21/attachment-0001.html>;