[bitcoin-dev] BIP 68 (Relative Locktime) bug

Mark Friedenbach mark at friedenbach.org
Sun Jul 5 16:17:19 UTC 2015

Can you construct an example? Are there use cases where there is a need for
an enforced lock time in a transaction with inputs that are not confirmed
at the time the lock time expires?
On Jul 5, 2015 8:00 AM, "Tom Harding" <tomh at thinlink.com> wrote:

> BIP 68 uses nSequence to specify relative locktime, but nSequence also
> continues to condition the transaction-level locktime.
> This dual effect will prevent a transaction from having an effective
> nLocktime without also requiring at least one of its inputs to be mined
> at least one block (or one second) ahead of its parent.
> The fix is to shift the semantics so that nSequence = MAX_INT - 1
> specifies 0 relative locktime, rather than 1.  This change will also
> preserve the semantics of transactions that have already been created
> with the specific nSequence value MAX_INT - 1 (for example all
> transactions created by the bitcoin core wallet starting in 0.11).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150705/1a2b9b0d/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list