[bitcoin-dev] BIP 68 (Relative Locktime) bug
tomh at thinlink.com
Sun Jul 5 16:25:17 UTC 2015
Since you're removing a working capability, you should be the one to
prove it is unneeded.
But the simple example is the case where the input is also locked.
On 7/5/2015 9:17 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> 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
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev