<unnamed>

Public Key

npub13aunkws5nhdv85pnj6swqc2zrfpljn3q4mz92thskgsyum0qle0saykfmh

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsg77fm8g2fmkkr6qeedg8qv9pp5slefcs2a3z49mctygzwdhs0uhcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqmpe6f5

Publishing to

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:39:30 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-21
📝 Original message:So, basically it sounds as though the wallet generating the transaction is
what is responsible for holding on to the transaction and then
only releasing it to the network when the NLOCKTIME value is less than or
equal to the current time. Does that sound right?
Braun
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, s7r <s7r at sky-ip.org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't think that a transaction with nLockTime>0 will be accepted by
> nodes / relayed in the Bitcoin network, until its time expires (e.g.
> nLockTime==now). This means it obviously cannot be stored in a block,
> before its locktime expires. nLockTime is designed in a way that you,
> need to keep it offline (not broadcast it to the network because it
> won't be accepted or relayed by nodes) until the locktime expires, then
> you can broadcast it and it will be mined and included in a block, like
> a normal tx.
>
> This is exactly why Peter Todd and others are working on
> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and RELATIVE CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - this is an
> enhancement to basic nLockTime which tends to offer to users the
> guarantee that if you have a transaction with nLockTime, the signer
> holding the private keys used to sign it cannot sign another one, with
> nLockTime 0 and broadcast it before the locktime for your tx expires.
>
> Cheers!
>
> On 6/21/2015 10:10 AM, Braun Brelin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > When a transaction with N_LOCKTIME>0 is created, does that transaction
> > get stored in a block on the blockchain or is it stored in the mempool
> > until the actual time (or block number) exceeds the current value? If
> > it is stored on the blockchain, how does that affect the concept of
> > pruning that is supposed to be going in to version 0.11? I.e. if I
> > create a transaction that doesn't take effect for 10 years, and that
> > transaction is stored in a block, does that block stay on the active
> > list for that period of time?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Braun Brelin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150621/62b1a575/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:39:29 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-21
📝 Original message:Hi all,
When a transaction with N_LOCKTIME>0 is created, does that transaction get
stored in a block on the blockchain or is it stored in the mempool until
the actual time (or block number) exceeds the current value? If it is
stored on the blockchain, how does that affect the concept of pruning that
is supposed to be going in to version 0.11? I.e. if I create a transaction
that doesn't take effect for 10 years, and that transaction is stored in a
block, does that block stay on the active list for that period of time?
Thanks,
Braun Brelin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150621/e85f1939/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:34:06 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-29
📝 Original message:How is this being pigheaded? In my opinion, this is leadership. If
*something* isn't implemented soon, the network is going to have some real
problems, right at the
time when adoption is starting to accelerate. I've been seeing nothing but
navel-gazing and circlejerks on this issue for weeks now. Gavin or Mike or
someone at some
point needs to step up and say "follow me".
Braun Brelin
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM, <insecurity at national.shitposting.agency>
wrote:
> Are you really that pig headed that you are going to try and blow up the
> entire system just to get your way? A bunch of ignorant redditors do not
> make consensus, mercifully.
>
>
> On 2015-05-29 12:39, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > What do other people think?
> >
> > If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
> > reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that
> > implement a big increase now that grows over time so we may never have
> > to go through all this rancor and debate again.
> >
> > I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges
> > and hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure
> > companies (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks
> > sooner rather than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core,
> > and state that they are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the
> > network by monitoring client versions.
> >
> > Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks
> > are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early
> > deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software
> > already deployed will ready for bigger blocks.
> >
> > But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger
> > blocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big
> > miners to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting
> > mechanism to (hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority
> > willing to produce bigger blocks. The purpose of that process is to
> > prove to any doubters that they'd better start supporting bigger
> > blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them a chance to upgrade
> > before that happens.
> >
> > Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
> > determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and
> > exchanges and miners are running.
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > Gavin Andresen
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/6353ffbd/attachment.html>