[bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime

Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org
Thu Aug 20 21:23:37 UTC 2015

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:27:10PM -0700, Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:21:36AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up.
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Tim??n <
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179
> I am also indifferent, but also dislike technical debt.
> It should maybe be noted for those who wish to do/write-code-for mempool
> transaction selection (irrespective of one's opinion on it) that lower
> is better, since transactions with shorter relative locks are
> transactions with "higher priority".

ACK on removing the inversion of nSequence from what would be human

I don't want to spend the rest of my life mentally having to subtrace
from 0xFFFFFFFF :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/92d2e642/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list