BIP 68,112,113 (OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY) #155
Conversation
jc23424
force-pushed
the
op-checksequenceverify
branch
from
46a95ca
to
a804c31
Compare
jc23424
changed the title
| // tx.nVersion is signed integer so requires cast to unsigned otherwise | ||
| // we would be doing a signed comparison and half the range of nVersion | ||
| // wouldn't support BIP 68. | ||
| bool fEnforceBIP68 = static_cast<uint32_t>(tx.nVersion) >= 2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For joinsplits, tx nVersion is >=2; perhaps we should use >=3 for BIP68?
https://github.com/BTCPrivate/BitcoinPrivate/blob/db43f3841525bc8c1b82934a70f5cae637f6caab/src/test/sighash_tests.cpp#L117
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't BIP68 call for >= 2?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0068.mediawiki
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. But so does Zcash JoinSplits: https://github.com/BTCPrivate/bitcore-lib-btcp/commit/80f5b45034e5174afedd722c6f730850d407f03b
|
Any updates on this? |
|
So actually, rather than pulling features here, we've shifted most new development efforts to the rebase, which will have CSV and lots of other nice stuff https://github.com/BTCPrivate/BTCP-Rebase |
No description provided.