Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 68 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: Relative lock-time (RLT) consensus-enforced semantics of the sequence number field to enable a signed transaction input to remain invalid for a defined period of time after confirmation of its corresponding outpoint.
3. Name the object that changes: RLT, BIP112.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 68 at the status the text itself states: Deployed.
• The object that has to change is RLT, BIP112. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• This page is not a guide to moving funds.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What is the timeout in Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers, and who can take the coins when it expires?
• Which chain, if any, adjudicates the dispute?
• Which fields are committed: RLT, BIP112?

Terms

BIP 68

The public text titled Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers.

Deployed

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A payment or a bridge that cannot name the dispute path is a custodial promise with extra steps.

What the design proposes

• Relative lock-time (RLT) consensus-enforced semantics of the sequence number field to enable a signed transaction input to remain invalid for a defined period of time after confirmation of its corresponding outpoint.
• Bitcoin transactions have a sequence number field for each input.
• The original idea appears to have been that a transaction in the mempool would be replaced by using the same input with a higher sequence value.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: Bitcoin transactions have a sequence number field for each input.
• Locate RLT, BIP112 in BIP 68 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A specification of a hash lock is not a working route, and not a guarantee the counterparty is online.
• This page is not a guide to moving funds.
• The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 68 when a pitch says 'Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.