<p dir="ltr">Sorry this was meant for the list:</p>
<p dir="ltr">There are only 32 bits in the version field. If you're going to spend a bit for perpetuity to indicate whether or not a feature is active, you'd better have a good reason to make that feature optional.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I haven't seen a compelling use case for having BIP 68 be optional in that way. As you note, BIP 68 semantics is already optional by toggling the most significant bit, and that doesn't permanently burn a version bit.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 23, 2015 7:41 PM, "jl2012 via bitcoin-dev" <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-23 21:01 寫到:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the<br>
discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more<br>
than one increment? This would leave additional space for future<br>
signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a<br>
sharechain commitement.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think this comment is more related to BIP68 instead of OP_CSV? Without further complicating the BIP68, I believe the best way to leave room for improvement is to spend a bit in tx nVersion to indicate the activation of BIP68. I have raised this issue before with <a href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010043.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010043.html</a> However, it seems Mark isn't in favor of my proposal<br>
<br>
The idea is not to permanently change the meaning of nSequence. Actually, BIP68 is "only enforced if the most significant bit of the sequence number field is set." So BIP68 is optional, anyway. All I suggest is to move the flag from nSequence to nVersion. However, this will leave much bigger room for using nSequence for other purpose in the future.<br>
<br>
AFAIK, nSequence is the only user definable and signed element in TxIn. There could be more interesting use of this field and we should not change its meaning permanently. (e.g. if nSequence had 8 bytes instead of 4 bytes, it could be used to indicate the value of the input to fix this problem: <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0</a> )<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>