Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05 📝 Original message:Since you're removing a ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-05
📝 Original message:Since you're removing a working capability, you should be the one to
prove it is unneeded.

But the simple example is the case where the input is also locked.


On 7/5/2015 9:17 AM, 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" <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/20150705/7e1dd1b2/attachment.html>;