ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation of existing semantics.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009350.html On 8/19/2015 9:21 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I am indifferent on this issue (the bit inversion), but so far only > Jorge has spoken up. I opted for this detail during implementation in > order to preserve existing semantics, even if those semantics are not > commonly used. This was the conservative choice, driven in part > because I didn't want the proposal to be held up by the other side > saying "this is confusing because it changes how sequence numbers > work! it used to count up but now it counts down!" > > I can see both sides and as I said I'm indifferent, so I went with the > conservative choice of not messing with existing semantics. However if > there is strong preferences from _multiple_ people on this matter it > is not too late to change. If anyone feels strongly about this, please > speak up. > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Timón > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179 > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > Please note there is now a PR for this BIP[1] and also a pull > request for > > the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core[2]. > > > > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179 > > [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564 >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
