Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP68: Second-level granularity doesn't make sense

From: Peter Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:58:40 -0500

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 <
> [email-masked]> 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