On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:28:49PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > writes: > > However I don't think we've done a good job showing why we need to > > implement this feature via nSequence. > > It could be implemented in other ways, but nSequence is the neatest and > most straightforward I've seen. > > - I'm not aware of any other (even vague) proposal for its use? Enlighten?
There's three that immediately come to mind: Gregory Maxwell has proposed it as a way of discouraging miners from reorging chains, by including some of the low-order bits of a previous block header in nSequence. A few people have proposed implementing proof-of-stake blocksize voting with nSequence. > - BIP68 reserves much of it for future use already. Well, a few low-order bits, if you want to use RCLTV functionality; pure RCLTV would save a lot more bits. > If we apply infinite caution we could never use nSequence, as there > might be a better use tommorrow. Indeed! But lets make sure we have a good argument in the BIP. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000de60f807a5fd32057510e7715038ecbc888052861b6a5c1
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
