Can you update it so that it only applies to transactions with version number 3 and higher. Changing the meaning of a field is exactly what the version numbers are for.
You could even decode version 3 transactions like that. Version 3 transactions have a sequence number of 0xFFFFFFFF and the sequence number field is re-purposed for relative lock time. This means that legacy transactions that have already been signed but have a locktime in the future will still be able to enter the blockchain (without having to wait significantly longer than expected). On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Mark Friedenbach <m...@friedenbach.org> wrote: > 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 > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
