Note that you can put 0 in the sequence number field and it would work just as expected under the old rules. I will perhaps suggest instead that Bitcoin Core post-0.11 switch to doing this instead for that case.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Tom Harding <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
