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

Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell at gmail.com
Mon Aug 24 01:01:26 UTC 2015

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation of
> existing semantics.
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html

I can't follow this logic. Can you help?  The existing semantics, to
the extent that they exist at all is that the earliest version starts
with the lowest sequence number then counts up (and if it makes its
way to the highest number, the result is final-- because it could go
no higher).

Thats the semantics 'the inversion' accomplishes for CSV: the that the
first version of a transaction begins with a smaller number which
successful versions increase, and the highest possible number is final
(no delay, because no delay is the shortest delay).

Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the
discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more
than one increment?  This would leave additional space for future
signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a
sharechain commitement.

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list