[bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime
rusty at rustcorp.com.au
Sun Aug 30 21:33:57 UTC 2015
jl2012 at xbt.hk writes:
> Rusty Russell 於 2015-08-26 23:08 寫到:
>> - We should immediately deploy an IsStandard() rule which insists that
>> nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF or 0, so nobody screws themselves when we
>> soft fork and they had random junk in there.
> This is not needed because BIP68 is not active for version 1 tx. No
> existing wallet would be affected.
Ah thanks! I missed the version bump in BIP68.
>> Aside: I'd also like to have nLockTime apply even if nSequence !=
>> 0xFFFFFFFF (another mistake I made). So I'd like an IsStandard() rule
>> to say it nLockTime be 0 if an nSequence != 0xFFFFFFFF. Would that
>> screw anyone currently?
> Do you mean "have nLockTime apply even if nSequence = 0xFFFFFFFF"? This
> is a softfork. Should we do this together with BIP65, BIP68 and BIP112?
Yes, but Mark pointed out that it has uses, so I withdraw the
More information about the bitcoin-dev