How many years of relative lock time do we need? It really depends why
we need a relative lock time in the first place, what what does it offer
in addition to CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. The only case I know is when the
confirmation taking too long, CLTV may expire before the tx is
confirmed. For use case like this, 1 year of relative lock time is much
more than enough, since Bitcoin is basically worthless if it takes
months to confirm a tx with a reasonable fee.
Is there any other use case of CSV that is irreplaceable by CLTV? There
is only one example in the BIP CSV draft.
For the timebased relative lock time, 256 seconds of granularity is more
than enough since the block interval is 600s. Although it is not
impossible to reduce the block interval in the future, that will be a
hardfork anyway and we may just hardfork BIP68/CSV at the same time.
Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-27 19:32 寫到:
So I've created 2 new repositories with changed rules regarding
sequencenumbers:
https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers2 [2]
This repository inverts (un-inverts?) the sequence number. nSequence=1
means 1 block relative lock-height. nSequence=LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD means
1 second relative lock-height. nSequence>=0x80000000 (most significant
bit set) is not interpreted as a relative lock-time.
https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers3 [3]
This repository not only inverts the sequence number, but also
interprets it as a fixed-point number. This allows up to 5 year
relative lock times using blocks as units, and saves 12 low-order bits
for future use. Or, up to about 2 year relative lock times using
seconds as units, and saves 4 bits for future use without second-level
granularity. More bits could be recovered from time-based locktimes by
choosing a higher granularity (a soft-fork change if done correctly).
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Mark Friedenbach
<m...@friedenbach.org> wrote:
To follow up on this, let's say that you want to be able to have up
to 1 year relative lock-times. This choice is somewhat arbitrary and
what I would like some input on, but I'll come back to this point.
* 1 bit is necessary to enable/disable relative lock-time.
* 1 bit is necessary to indicate whether seconds vs blocks as the
unit of measurement.
* 1 year of time with 1-second granularity requires 25 bits.
However since blocks occur at approximately 10 minute intervals on
average, having a relative lock-time significantly less than this
interval doesn't make much sense. A granularity of 256 seconds would
be greater than the Nyquist frequency and requires only 17 bits.
* 1 year of blocks with 1-block granularity requires 16 bits.
So time-based relative lock time requires about 19 bits, and
block-based relative lock-time requires about 18 bits. That leaves
13 or 14 bits for other uses.
Assuming a maximum of 1-year relative lock-times. But what is an
appropriate maximum to choose? The use cases I have considered have
only had lock times on the order of a few days to a month or so.
However I would feel uncomfortable going less than a year for a hard
maximum, and am having trouble thinking of any use case that would
require more than a year of lock-time. Can anyone else think of a
use case that requires >1yr relative lock-time?
TL;DR
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Mark Friedenbach
<m...@friedenbach.org> wrote:
A power of 2 would be far more efficient here. The key question is
how long of a relative block time do you need? Figure out what the
maximum should be ( I don't know what that would be, any ideas?) and
then see how many bits you have left over.
On Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, "Jorge Timón"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
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.
No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this
to
Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1".
He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to
timestamps.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[2] https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers2
[3] https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/sequencenumbers3
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
