Author: jl2012 at xbt.hk 2015-08-24 02:40:56
Published on: 2015-08-24T02:40:56+00:00
In this email thread from 2015, Gregory Maxwell suggests adding an extra layer to the discussion and asks whether anyone has thought about representing one block with more than one increment. He proposes that this would leave additional space for future signaling or allow for higher resolution numbers for a sharechain commitment. Another participant in the thread responds by saying that they believe Maxwell's comment is more related to BIP68 instead of OP_CSV. They suggest that without further complicating BIP68, the best way to leave room for improvement is to spend a bit in tx nVersion to indicate the activation of BIP68. The idea is not to permanently change the meaning of nSequence, which is the only user definable and signed element in TxIn. BIP68 is "only enforced if the most significant bit of the sequence number field is set," so it is optional anyway. All that is suggested is to move the flag from nSequence to nVersion. However, this will leave much bigger room for using nSequence for other purposes in the future. There could be more interesting uses for this field, such as indicating the value of the input to fix a problem.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T19:21:42.126127+00:00