From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction replacement via sequence numbers
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:59:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-tQyrc8ncAFauDObmBYn3uSwBcLoWVqruaV6PcTUFbTKg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OUG5p_hAOFvaE10kTT7sa=2GrzvZpis5FzATSEcNwZpyw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3066 bytes --]
Why 3? Do we have a version 2?
As for doing it in serialization, that would alter the txid making it a
hard fork change.
On May 28, 2015 03:30, "Tier Nolan" <tier.nolan@gmail•com> wrote:
> Can you update it so that it only applies to transactions with version
> number 3 and higher. Changing the meaning of a field is exactly what the
> version numbers are for.
>
> You could even decode version 3 transactions like that.
>
> Version 3 transactions have a sequence number of 0xFFFFFFFF and the
> sequence number field is re-purposed for relative lock time.
>
> This means that legacy transactions that have already been signed but have
> a locktime in the future will still be able to enter the blockchain
> (without having to wait significantly longer than expected).
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
> wrote:
>
>> I have no problem with modifying the proposal to have the most
>> significant bit signal use of the nSequence field as a relative lock-time.
>> That leaves a full 31 bits for experimentation when relative lock-time is
>> not in use. I have adjusted the code appropriately:
>>
>> https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, this proposal was purposefully constructed to maintain as well as
>>>> possible the semantics of Satoshi's original construction. Higher sequence
>>>> numbers -- chronologically later transactions -- are able to hit the chain
>>>> earlier, and therefore it can be reasonably argued will be selected by
>>>> miners before the later transactions mature. Did I fail in some way to
>>>> capture that original intent?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but the original protocol allowed for e.g. millions of revisions
>>> of the transaction, hence for high frequency trading (that's actually how
>>> Satoshi originally explained it to me - as a way to do HFT - back then the
>>> channel concept didn't exist).
>>>
>>> As you point out, with a careful construction of channels you should
>>> only need to bump the sequence number when the channel reverses direction.
>>> If your app only needs to do that rarely, it's a fine approach.And your
>>> proposal does sounds better than sequence numbers being useless like at the
>>> moment. I'm just wondering if we can get back to the original somehow or at
>>> least leave a path open to it, as it seems to be a superset of all other
>>> proposals, features-wise.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4692 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-28 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-27 1:50 Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-27 7:47 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-27 8:18 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-05-27 10:00 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-27 10:58 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-27 17:07 ` Jorge Timón
2015-05-27 8:04 ` Telephone Lemien
2015-05-27 10:11 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-27 15:26 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-27 17:39 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-28 9:56 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-28 10:23 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-28 10:30 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-28 12:04 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-28 13:35 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-28 16:22 ` s7r
2015-05-28 17:21 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-28 14:59 ` Mark Friedenbach [this message]
2015-05-28 15:18 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-28 15:38 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-28 15:57 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-10 2:40 ` Rusty Russell
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='CAOG=w-tQyrc8ncAFauDObmBYn3uSwBcLoWVqruaV6PcTUFbTKg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mark@friedenbach$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=tier.nolan@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