-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
Timelocks #23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
imaginator
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you need to link these into the menu
|
@imaginator I updated this and the other PR to replace them with versions that are linked into the menu |
imaginator
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
as with my other comments... "```rust" will make the code easier to read.
|
Overall 7b7e489 looks good. It is missing two things:
|
|
On Bitcoin standard advice is to never use time-based, only use block-based timelocks, because they're easier to reason about, less miner-gamable, and give you a longer range. Unfortunately on Liquid we inherited Bitcoin's "up to 65535 blocks or up to 65535 512-second intervals" limits. But with blocks coming 1 minute rather than every 10 minutes, this means that block-based relative timelocks are limited to roughly 45 days. If you need a longer timelock you're forced to use time-based ones, which will get you a bit over a year. If you need longer than that you have to use absolute, rather than relative, timelocks. |
|
I'm planning to talk this over with @apoelstra tomorrow and then make some edits based on my deepened understanding of this topic. |
Add some material on how relative timelocks using block distance work