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 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 > >> 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 > >>> 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 >>>>> 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.