Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime

From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>,
	Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
	Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:23:18 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E3B7469-1018-4649-8DF1-6597F82774F1@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzsPrg7VhTQC8aCvcQ3yAN8rtt+Qv_yfrCKMqOALpGPVyg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4947 bytes --]

I'd rather replace the whole nSequence thing with an explicit relative locktime with clear semantics...but I'm not going to fight this one too much.

On September 16, 2015 6:40:06 PM EDT, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Where do we stand now on which sequencenumbers variation to use? We
>really
>should make a decision now.
>
>On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
>bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> So I've created 2 new repositories with changed rules regarding
>> sequencenumbers:
>>
>> https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers2
>>
>> This repository inverts (un-inverts?) the sequence number.
>nSequence=1
>> means 1 block relative lock-height. nSequence=LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD
>means 1
>> second relative lock-height. nSequence>=0x80000000 (most significant
>bit
>> set) is not interpreted as a relative lock-time.
>>
>> https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers3
>>
>> This repository not only inverts the sequence number, but also
>interprets
>> it as a fixed-point number. This allows up to 5 year relative lock
>times
>> using blocks as units, and saves 12 low-order bits for future use.
>Or, up
>> to about 2 year relative lock times using seconds as units, and saves
>4
>> bits for future use without second-level granularity. More bits could
>be
>> recovered from time-based locktimes by choosing a higher granularity
>(a
>> soft-fork change if done correctly).
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Mark Friedenbach
><mark@friedenbach•org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To follow up on this, let's say that you want to be able to have up
>to 1
>>> year relative lock-times. This choice is somewhat arbitrary and what
>I
>>> would like some input on, but I'll come back to this point.
>>>
>>>  * 1 bit is necessary to enable/disable relative lock-time.
>>>
>>>  * 1 bit is necessary to indicate whether seconds vs blocks as the
>unit
>>> of measurement.
>>>
>>>  * 1 year of time with 1-second granularity requires 25 bits.
>However
>>> since blocks occur at approximately 10 minute intervals on average,
>having
>>> a relative lock-time significantly less than this interval doesn't
>make
>>> much sense. A granularity of 256 seconds would be greater than the
>Nyquist
>>> frequency and requires only 17 bits.
>>>
>>>  * 1 year of blocks with 1-block granularity requires 16 bits.
>>>
>>> So time-based relative lock time requires about 19 bits, and
>block-based
>>> relative lock-time requires about 18 bits. That leaves 13 or 14 bits
>for
>>> other uses.
>>>
>>> Assuming a maximum of 1-year relative lock-times. But what is an
>>> appropriate maximum to choose? The use cases I have considered have
>only
>>> had lock times on the order of a few days to a month or so. However
>I would
>>> feel uncomfortable going less than a year for a hard maximum, and am
>having
>>> trouble thinking of any use case that would require more than a year
>of
>>> lock-time. Can anyone else think of a use case that requires >1yr
>relative
>>> lock-time?
>>>
>>> TL;DR
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Mark Friedenbach
><mark@friedenbach•org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A power of 2 would be far more efficient here. The key question is
>how
>>>> long of a relative block time do you need? Figure out what the
>maximum
>>>> should be ( I don't know what that would be, any ideas?) and then
>see how
>>>> many bits you have left over.
>>>> On Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, "Jorge Timón" <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> > Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the
>>>>> > discussion has any thought been given to represent one block
>with more
>>>>> > than one increment?  This would leave additional space for
>future
>>>>> > signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for
>a
>>>>> > sharechain commitement.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained
>this to
>>>>> Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1".
>>>>> He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to
>timestamps.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7218 bytes --]