From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - We need more usecases to motivate the change
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 16:30:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151003143056.GA27942@muck> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2325 bytes --]
BIP68 and BIP112 collectively define the CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY semantics,
which can be summarized conceptually as a relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
However, CSV does define behavior for the previously undefined nSequence
field, which is the only "free-form" field we currently have in the
transaction serialization format that can be used for future upgrades -
we should justify this new behavior carefully as it limits our options
in the future. Adding new fields to the serialization format is very
difficult, due to the very broad system-wide impact of the hard-fork
required to do so.
So we need to make the case for two main things:
1) We have applications that need a relative (instead of absolute CLTV)
2) Additionally to RCLTV, we need to implement this via nSequence
To show we need RCLTV BIP112 provides the example "Escrow with Timeout",
which is a need that was brought up by GreenAddress, among others; I
don't think we have an issue there, though getting more examples would
be a good thing. (the CLTV BIP describes seven use cases, and one
additional future use-case)
However I don't think we've done a good job showing why we need to
implement this feature via nSequence. BIP68 describes the new nSequence
semantics, and gives the rational for them as being a
"Consensus-enforced tx replacement" mechanism, with a bidirectional
payment channel as an example of this in action. However, the
bidirectional payment channel concept itself can be easily implemented
with CLTV alone. There is a small drawback in that the initial
transaction could be delayed, reducing the overall time the channel
exists, but the protocol already assumes that transactions can be
reliably confirmed within a day - significantly less than the proposed
30 days duration of the channel. That example alone I don't think
justifies a fairly complex soft-fork that limits future upgrades; we
need more justification.
So, what else can the community come up with? nSequence itself exists
because of a failed feature that turned out to not work as intended;
it'd be a shame to make that kind of mistake again, so let's get our
semantics and use-cases in the BIPs and documented before we deploy.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ea95b4a24d0a510d4b5a98186f904dc16da07c41189d8b8
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2015-10-03 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-03 14:30 Peter Todd [this message]
2015-10-03 18:49 ` jl2012
2015-10-04 8:35 ` Anthony Towns
2015-10-04 12:04 ` s7r
2015-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-06 0:19 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-10-06 11:09 ` Peter Todd
2015-10-06 0:28 ` Btc Drak
2015-10-06 1:58 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-08 17:41 ` Peter Todd
2015-10-09 1:38 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-15 13:47 ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-15 16:27 ` Btc Drak
2015-10-15 16:37 ` Adam Back
2015-10-15 16:41 ` Alex Morcos
2015-10-15 18:31 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-10-15 23:18 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-16 1:26 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-19 10:43 ` Jorge Timón
2015-10-06 20:00 ` Joseph Poon
2015-10-08 17:43 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151003143056.GA27942@muck \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox