jl2...@xbt.hk writes: > Rusty Russell 於 2015-08-26 23:08 寫到: >> - 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. > > This is not needed because BIP68 is not active for version 1 tx. No > existing wallet would be affected.
Ah thanks! I missed the version bump in BIP68. >> 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? > > Do you mean "have nLockTime apply even if nSequence = 0xFFFFFFFF"? This > is a softfork. Should we do this together with BIP65, BIP68 and BIP112? Yes, but Mark pointed out that it has uses, so I withdraw the suggestion. Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev