[Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction replacement via sequence numbers
rusty at rustcorp.com.au
Wed Jun 10 02:40:38 UTC 2015
Tier Nolan <tier.nolan at gmail.com> writes:
> What are the use cases for relative lock time verify? I have 1 and I think
> that is the kind of thing it is useful for.
> I think that most cases are just to guarantee that the other party has a
> chance to react. This means that 8191 blocks should be more than enough
> (and most would set it lower).
> For long term, the absolute version is just as good. That depends on use
> cases. "You can't take step 4 until 3 months after step 3 has completed"
> doesn't seem useful.
Lightning channels want them exactly like this to revoke old
transactions, which could be ancient on long-lived channels.
More information about the bitcoin-dev