📅 Original date posted:2021-06-29 📝 Original message:Good thinking. Your point ...

Chris Belcher [ARCHIVE] /

npub1ekv…nm2u

2023-06-07 22:54:34

in reply to nevent1q…2kae

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-29
📝 Original message:Good thinking. Your point also applies to CoinJoins (both equal-output
and payjoin), and to any transaction where multiple parties contribute
inputs.

The BIP should say "at least one of the inputs of the transaction" with
a suggestion that on-chain wallets just randomly pick an input.

On 28/06/2021 11:55, Ben Carman via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> If nSequence is set it should apply only to the first input of the
> transaction, if it has multiple inputs.
>
> This could have complications with DLCs and dual funded lightning. In both protocols the ordering of the inputs is not know until both parties have revealed all of their inputs, and during the reveal the nSequence is given. If we want DLCs and dual funded lightning to be compatible it would be better to have it define it as “at least one of the inputs of the transaction” instead of “it should apply only to the first input of the transaction”
>
> benthecarman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

Author Public Key

npub1ekvnqhww3aagwuj9t55dgj5y29u8cxdjllfv3vgppt8vc0zljhrs6lnm2u

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 22:54:34

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "37f59168a6429e5b0bd27f6ce71939b1301196191bc47468c16eacad14b478f6", "pubkey": "cd99305dce8f7a8772455d28d44a8451787c19b2ffd2c8b1010acecc3c5f95c7", "created_at": 1686178474, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "e9b4b76b6a6ca4efb8c75ca8b68b7a20f5f90abba79d09c78a1fe89fc3c760ce", "", "root" ], [ "e", "d172c038091b86ffbbe3c013dbe714a214d6954fbadecb366c52aba8024ccbbe", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "f7d7054638b41c5aa85d000f6b5903c1ef32852243483c654798d2a61aa5079c" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-06-29\n📝 Original message:Good thinking. Your point also applies to CoinJoins (both equal-output\nand payjoin), and to any transaction where multiple parties contribute\ninputs.\n\nThe BIP should say \"at least one of the inputs of the transaction\" with\na suggestion that on-chain wallets just randomly pick an input.\n\nOn 28/06/2021 11:55, Ben Carman via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e If nSequence is set it should apply only to the first input of the\n\u003e transaction, if it has multiple inputs.\n\u003e \n\u003e This could have complications with DLCs and dual funded lightning. In both protocols the ordering of the inputs is not know until both parties have revealed all of their inputs, and during the reveal the nSequence is given. If we want DLCs and dual funded lightning to be compatible it would be better to have it define it as “at least one of the inputs of the transaction” instead of “it should apply only to the first input of the transaction”\n\u003e \n\u003e benthecarman\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e", "sig": "0ef44868047423722f0d5c7a42067e3e27e8c8f2fba20db7069f03f63a8c0d83ad9e86edaa9ca79fe95e7ea16e368fc39fd28c94f5d839cc6f4fb855cfc47401" }