[Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signalled via sequence numbers
Stephen Morse
stephencalebmorse at gmail.com
Tue Jun 2 14:10:30 UTC 2015
>
> That would also introduce the anomaly of a script that was once valid
> becoming later invalid, when nothing varies other than time. That is
> not super compatible with the current model of reprocessing
> transactions in later blocks if the block they were first in gets
> reorged.
>
Very good point.
>
> (Not a huge flexibility loss as you can implement "not after" by
> making it the previous holders responsibility to spend a "not before"
> back to themselves.)
>
Do you mean something like the below?
scriptPubKey:
IF
{A's pub} CHECKSIGVERIFY
ELSE
{curr_height + 100} CLTV {B's pub} CHECKSIGVERIFY
This ensures that Alice has to spend the output in the next 100 blocks or
risk it being taken from her (she just has to put an OP_TRUE on the end of
her scriptSig). So, it seems we can forget about an inverted CLTV/CSV,
great!
Best,
Stephen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150602/16a5e2ae/attachment.html>
More information about the bitcoin-dev
mailing list