Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-27 📝 Original message:Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-27
📝 Original message:Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> This BIP has been assigned BIP112 by the BIP repository maintainer. I
> have updated the pull request accordingly.
>
> Regarding the suggestion to cannibalise version, by your own
> disadvantage list, we would lose fine grained control over txins which
> neuters the usefulness considerably. Also using version is also ugly
> because there isn't a semantic association with what we are trying to
> do, whereas, sequence is associated with transaction finality and is
> thus the more appropriate and logical field to use.
OK, having implemented lightning test code against the initial proposal,
I can give the following anecdata:
- I screwed up inversion in my initial implementation. Please kill it.
- 256 second granularity would be be fine in deployment, but a bit
painful for testing (I currently use 60 seconds, and "sleep 61"). 64
would work better for me, and works roughly as minutes.
- 1 year should be sufficient as a max; my current handwave is <= 1 day
per lightning hop, max 12 hops, though we have no deployment data.
- We should immediately deploy an IsStandard() rule which insists that
nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF or 0, so nobody screws themselves when we
soft fork and they had random junk in there.
Aside: I'd also like to have nLockTime apply even if nSequence !=
0xFFFFFFFF (another mistake I made). So I'd like an IsStandard() rule
to say it nLockTime be 0 if an nSequence != 0xFFFFFFFF. Would that
screw anyone currently?
Thanks,
Rusty.
Published at
2023-06-07 15:46:54Event JSON
{
"id": "407cff9b9ec3fee4142724b63de807bab9b8c6827d4ec4a89e88916049f1ba10",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686152814,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6086ec24c7436956a4324b488abdb6aa06edbf1e682d11a0a5b70b6f8e62e6f3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"26797415ddb1c55d63c9f9356ecc3b75db82af585055ec52d03f050d7876f314",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-27\n📝 Original message:Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e writes:\n\u003e This BIP has been assigned BIP112 by the BIP repository maintainer. I\n\u003e have updated the pull request accordingly.\n\u003e\n\u003e Regarding the suggestion to cannibalise version, by your own\n\u003e disadvantage list, we would lose fine grained control over txins which\n\u003e neuters the usefulness considerably. Also using version is also ugly\n\u003e because there isn't a semantic association with what we are trying to\n\u003e do, whereas, sequence is associated with transaction finality and is\n\u003e thus the more appropriate and logical field to use.\n\nOK, having implemented lightning test code against the initial proposal,\nI can give the following anecdata:\n\n- I screwed up inversion in my initial implementation. Please kill it.\n\n- 256 second granularity would be be fine in deployment, but a bit\n painful for testing (I currently use 60 seconds, and \"sleep 61\"). 64\n would work better for me, and works roughly as minutes.\n\n- 1 year should be sufficient as a max; my current handwave is \u003c= 1 day\n per lightning hop, max 12 hops, though we have no deployment data.\n\n- We should immediately deploy an IsStandard() rule which insists that\n nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF or 0, so nobody screws themselves when we\n soft fork and they had random junk in there.\n\nAside: I'd also like to have nLockTime apply even if nSequence !=\n0xFFFFFFFF (another mistake I made). So I'd like an IsStandard() rule\nto say it nLockTime be 0 if an nSequence != 0xFFFFFFFF. Would that\nscrew anyone currently?\n\nThanks,\nRusty.",
"sig": "8366e9f1db8e8fd278c36a4295dead2a4527eb60fe0ec8f3fd11e43eea35e899ebf5e9095b5432896221d16ea6e43ae2ce29cc7a6b2749d4fffaa77317f07c55"
}