Understanding blocking and sequence settings in Ethereum
Since its inception, the intelligent contractual platform of Ethereum has been a revolutionary power in the world of Blockchain technology. However, there are some peculiarities of the way the locks and sequences operate in the network that have caused a debate among developers and users.
One of these peculiarities is the different settings for blocking and sequence, especially as regards the order of the exchange of the state of the contract.
Setting Locktime
Ethereum’s Locktime settings are how long before the update can be done on a blockchain. Determines the minimum time that must be transferred between two updates to a contract or intelligent contract. This is represented in the transaction by the field “LECKTME”. Locktime is essentially the maximum time it needs for the next update before updating this update.
Settings sequence
On the other hand, setting the Ethereum sequence applies how many transactions are needed to replace the current state of the intelligent contract or functional call. This represents the number of “updates” that must occur before making a different update to the blockchain. The sequence is represented by “sequence” in the transaction.
Rocuity: one field Timelock for transaction, one sequence for entry
Interestingly, the “Locktimeand" sequence "settings are implemented at different levels within the transaction. This means that there is one field "Timelock" for all transactions (ie "LECKTME"), but only one "sequential" field for entry.
For example, if we consider two separate inputs (inputaa inputb`) with our own sequences and locations, there are actually four “updates” to which the same transaction is to be taken to take into account: two updates for each input. . However, the sequence setting only ensures that a maximum of one update may occur before the other.
Consequences of this peculiarity
This peculiarity has led some developers and users to ask whether the settings of blocking and sequences in Ethereum are truly independent or if they share a common basic mechanism. Although it is understandable that such complexities may result from the Ethereum proposal, these differences can force the developers to write an effective and scalable intelligent contract code code.
Conclusion
The differences between the “LECKTime” and “sequence” settings in Ethereum are interesting and may require further research or clarification to fully understand their consequences. However, this special behavior is a proof of the complexity and richness of the Ethereum protocol, which continues to inspire innovation and experiments between developers and researchers.
For further exploring and discussing this subject, I will encourage you to plug in Whitepaper Ethereum and examine various details of implementation of locks and sequences in the ecosystem of smart contracts.
