I have no problem with modifying the proposal to have the most significant bit signal use of the nSequence field as a relative lock-time. That leaves a full 31 bits for experimentation when relative lock-time is not in use. I have adjusted the code appropriately:
https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Mike Hearn <m...@plan99.net> wrote: > 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. >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
