📅 Original date posted:2015-05-27
📝 Original message:>
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150527/8c096952/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:35:50
in reply to nevent1q…8zsj
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:35:50Event JSON
{
"id": "1936a34d853fed09ad1b75e5a1381d91e78860472e8cfb524c9fe9633d2ab085",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686152150,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c199e20b6969bf72586a0429657926889637a0b69d122308bc0c76c04451abb2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"61ca263a27c682d7822d9205586f871591a5553f76084725130d8d2893f17f18",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Mike, this proposal was purposefully constructed to maintain as well as\n\u003e possible the semantics of Satoshi's original construction. Higher sequence\n\u003e numbers -- chronologically later transactions -- are able to hit the chain\n\u003e earlier, and therefore it can be reasonably argued will be selected by\n\u003e miners before the later transactions mature. Did I fail in some way to\n\u003e capture that original intent?\n\u003e\n\nRight, but the original protocol allowed for e.g. millions of revisions of\nthe transaction, hence for high frequency trading (that's actually how\nSatoshi originally explained it to me - as a way to do HFT - back then the\nchannel concept didn't exist).\n\nAs you point out, with a careful construction of channels you should only\nneed to bump the sequence number when the channel reverses direction. If\nyour app only needs to do that rarely, it's a fine approach.And your\nproposal does sounds better than sequence numbers being useless like at the\nmoment. I'm just wondering if we can get back to the original somehow or at\nleast leave a path open to it, as it seems to be a superset of all other\nproposals, features-wise.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150527/8c096952/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "84493600dc8ae21dd759c06aa3ed6d29e3c8ed1e72888e5036926a1578897ac634bcb97822ea0f8c1f4ac121787700819004fbfe2df1a3f970cbcf3da8352e2f"
}