Bitcoin Stack Alternate is a query and reply website for Bitcoin crypto-currency fans. It solely takes a minute to enroll.
Anyone can ask a query
Anyone can reply
The perfect solutions are voted up and rise to the highest
Requested
Seen
19 instances
Trying on the BIP65, it says that the CLTV will fail if the nSequence discipline of the txin is 0xffffffff. It appears logical to me since if the nSequence of all inputs are set to 0xffffffff, the worth of nLocktime and absolute time usually are not considered. Nevertheless, does the nSequence of the enter that consumes output with CLTV have to be != 0xffffffff, or the nSequence of any enter contained in the transaction could be != 0xffffffff and the enter that consumes output with CLTV can stick with nSequence set to 0xffffffff
and that CLTV nonetheless move? I’m asking as a result of in each instances the locktime and absolute time lock will probably be considered, that’s, the locktime will probably be activated. Thanks.
Citing BIP65, which launched OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
:
When executed, if any of the next situations are true, the script interpreter will terminate with an error:
- the stack is empty; or
- the highest merchandise on the stack is lower than 0; or
- the lock-time sort (peak vs. timestamp) of the highest stack merchandise and the nLockTime discipline usually are not the identical; or
- the highest stack merchandise is larger than the transaction’s nLockTime discipline; or
the nSequence discipline of the txin is 0xffffffff;
(emphasis mine)
So OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
requires the nSequence
worth of the spending enter itself to not be 0xffffffff. Whereas it technically suffices that not less than one enter has a non-0xffffffff nSequence
for the spending transaction to have a related nLockTime
, the selection was made in BIP65 to require that the enter itself has such an nSequence
. In accordance with the implementation’s supply code, this was achieved to attenuate the quantity of information wanted to show an enter is appropriate.