From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP68: Second-level granularity doesn't make sense
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:58:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151124055840.GA5942@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzscFPjY5tSPkZgp-Vkd7GraaeQ85qrYU2OHXEfKUSCYkg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:05:32AM +0000, Btc Drak wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > The downside of BIP68 as written is users of by-height locktimes have 14
> > bits unused in nSequence, but by-time locktimes have just 5 bits unused.
> > This presents an awkward situation if we add new meanings to nSequence
> > if we ever need more than 5 bits. Yet as shown above, the extra
> > granularity doesn't have a practical benefit.
> >
> >
> > Recommendation: Change BIP68 to make by-time locks have the same number
> > of bits as by-height locks, and multiply the by-time lock field by the
> > block interval.
> >
>
> I think you might be referring to the old specification. I believe this was
> brought up before and the specification was changed so the same number of
> bits were used for by-time and by-height. Please see
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/245
>
> However, I am glad you came to the came conclusions independently because
> "re-invention" often confirms good ideas :)
Ha, that's awesome! Looks like we're pretty much on the same page re:
granularity.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000003c0cf6b89d2a9b68a8cedbd3935962203c21663925c714b
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-24 5:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-24 4:36 Peter Todd
2015-11-24 5:05 ` Btc Drak
2015-11-24 5:58 ` Peter Todd [this message]
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=20151124055840.GA5942@savin.petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=btcdrak@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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