From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 68 (Relative Locktime) bug
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:21:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBi_Q9heOQVtZHBOgweT5HrNRy7kPKQkok2VCE+0VaCd1Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sgM+H0bGBfZxLhbUHF3y=v4vdBAOTDsZ1LEc3dLzsf6g@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1595 bytes --]
I would say yes. Just putting a locktime in transaction may help against
fee sniping, even in transactions that are allowed to be mined at the same
time as some of their dependencies?
On Jul 5, 2015 6:17 PM, "Mark Friedenbach" <mark@friedenbach•org> wrote:
> Can you construct an example? Are there use cases where there is a need
> for an enforced lock time in a transaction with inputs that are not
> confirmed at the time the lock time expires?
> On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding" <tomh@thinlink•com> wrote:
>
>> BIP 68 uses nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also
>> continues to condition the transaction-level locktime.
>>
>> This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an effective
>> nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to be mined
>> at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent.
>>
>> The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence = MAX_INT - 1
>> specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1. This change will also
>> preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been created
>> with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all
>> transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in 0.11).
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2495 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-05 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-05 15:00 Tom Harding
2015-07-05 16:17 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-07-05 16:21 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2015-07-05 16:25 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-05 17:07 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-07-05 19:50 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-05 19:57 ` Tom Harding
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=CAPg+sBi_Q9heOQVtZHBOgweT5HrNRy7kPKQkok2VCE+0VaCd1Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=mark@friedenbach$(echo .)org \
/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