1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
|
<pre>
BIP: 113
Title: Median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations
Author: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>
Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2015-08-10
</pre>
==Abstract==
This BIP is a proposal to redefine the semantics used in determining a
time-locked transaction's eligibility for inclusion in a block. The
median of the last 11 blocks is used instead of the block's timestamp,
ensuring that it increases monotonically with each block.
==Motivation==
At present, transactions are excluded from inclusion in a block if the
present time or block height is less than or equal to that specified
in the locktime. Since the consensus rules do not mandate strict
ordering of block timestamps, this has the unfortunate outcome of
creating a perverse incentive for miners to lie about the time of
their blocks in order to collect more fees by including transactions
that by wall clock determination have not yet matured.
This BIP proposes comparing the locktime against the median of the
past 11 block's timestamps, rather than the timestamp of the block
including the transaction. Existing consensus rules guarantee this
value to monotonically advance, thereby removing the capability for
miners to claim more transaction fees by lying about the timestamps of
their block.
This proposal seeks to ensure reliable behaviour in locktime calculations as
required by BIP65 (CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY), BIP68, and BIP112 (CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY).
==Specification==
The values for transaction locktime remain unchanged. The difference is only in
the calculation determining whether a transaction can be included. Instead of
an unreliable timestamp, the following function is used to determine the current
block time for the purpose of checking lock-time constraints:
enum { nMedianTimeSpan=11 };
int64_t GetMedianTimePast(const CBlockIndex* pindex)
{
int64_t pmedian[nMedianTimeSpan];
int64_t* pbegin = &pmedian[nMedianTimeSpan];
int64_t* pend = &pmedian[nMedianTimeSpan];
for (int i = 0; i < nMedianTimeSpan && pindex; i++, pindex = pindex->pprev)
*(--pbegin) = pindex->GetBlockTime();
std::sort(pbegin, pend);
return pbegin[(pend - pbegin)/2];
}
Lock-time constraints are checked by the consensus method IsFinalTx(),
or LockTime() under BIP68. These methods take the block time as one
parameter. This BIP proposes that after activation calls to
IsFinalTx() or LockTime() within consensus code use the return value
of `GetMedianTimePast(pindexPrev)` instead.
A reference implementation of this proposal is provided in the
following git repository:
https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/medianpasttimelock
==Deployment==
We reuse the double-threshold switchover mechanism from BIPs 34 and
66, with the same thresholds, but for nVersion = 8. The new rules are
in effect for every block (at height H) with nVersion = 8 and at least
750 out of 1000 blocks preceding it (with heights H-1000..H-1) also
have nVersion = 8. Furthermore, when 950 out of the 1000 blocks
preceding a block do have nVersion = 8, nVersion = 3 blocks become
invalid, and all further blocks enforce the new rules.
When assessing the block version as mask of ~0x20000007 must be applied
to work around the complications caused by
[http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010396.html BIP101's premature use]
of the [https://gist.github.com/sipa/bf69659f43e763540550 undecided version bits proposal].
By applying ~0x20000007 with nVersion = 8, the thresholds should be tested
comparing block nVersion >= 4 as this will save a bit for future use.
It is recommended that this soft-fork deployment trigger include other related
proposals for improving Bitcoin's lock-time capabilities, including:
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki BIP 65]:
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY,
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0068.mediawiki BIP 68]:
Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signalled via sequence numbers,
and [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki BIP 112]:
CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY.
==Acknowledgements==
Mark Friedenbach for designing and authoring the reference
implementation of this BIP.
Thanks go to Gregory Maxwell who came up with the original idea,
in #bitcoin-wizards on 2013-07-16.
Thomas Kerin authored this BIP document.
==Compatibility==
Transactions generated using time-based lock-time will take
approximately an hour longer to confirm than would be expected under
the old rules. This is not known to introduce any compatibility
concerns with existing protocols.
==References==
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki BIP65: OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY]
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0068.mediawiki BIP68: Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signaled via sequence numbers]
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki BIP112: CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY]
[http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010396.html Softfork deployment considerations]
[https://gist.github.com/sipa/bf69659f43e763540550 Version bits]
==Copyright==
This document is placed in the public domain.
|
