Author: Tier Nolan 2017-09-07 10:31:41
Published on: 2017-09-07T10:31:41+00:00
There is a discussion about timelocked transactions and their potential risks. If a timelocked transaction has a zero value input and the SF (soft fork) happens, that transaction would become unspendable. The keys to the outputs may also be lost or the co-signer may refuse to cooperate. There are objections to long term timelocked transactions, but it is recommended that any timelocked transactions should use forms that are popular. Any change which makes some transactions invalid should be opt-in and only apply to new transaction version numbers. If a timelocked transaction has an undefined version number, little can be done about it. However, if the version number is defined and in-use, transactions should not suddenly lose validity. A refusal to commit to this rule makes long term locktime use much more risky. There is also a discussion about allowing spendable outputs with null amounts and whether there is any reason or use case to keep allowing them.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T18:06:50.800336+00:00