On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation of > existing semantics. > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html
I can't follow this logic. Can you help? The existing semantics, to the extent that they exist at all is that the earliest version starts with the lowest sequence number then counts up (and if it makes its way to the highest number, the result is final-- because it could go no higher). Thats the semantics 'the inversion' accomplishes for CSV: the that the first version of a transaction begins with a smaller number which successful versions increase, and the highest possible number is final (no delay, because no delay is the shortest delay). Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more than one increment? This would leave additional space for future signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a sharechain commitement. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
