From a608a03a8753e908062e25c6d898a40d922fbe61 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark B Lundeberg <36528214+markblundeberg@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:09:38 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] nSequence signing?

---
 Comments:BIP-0118.md | 11 ++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Comments:BIP-0118.md b/Comments:BIP-0118.md
index 64cb53f..b7ef660 100644
--- a/Comments:BIP-0118.md
+++ b/Comments:BIP-0118.md
@@ -1 +1,10 @@
-Regarding the future of the Lightning Network I like that BIP. However I could not find a link to an implementation. Where can I find it?
\ No newline at end of file
+Regarding the future of the Lightning Network I like that BIP. However I could not find a link to an implementation. Where can I find it?
+
+***
+
+I notice that the nSequence for the input under consideration is kept inside the signed data. Interesting to consider the implications for Eltoo:
+
+* If nSequence is signed, then the `10 OP_CSV` in the Eltoo paper is unnecessary since both of the settlement signatures will be already enforcing a specific maturation delay using BIP68.
+* If nSequence is unsigned, then the `10 OP_CSV` is needed. But, perhaps leaving nSequence unsigned opens the door for more flexibility in other smart contract schemes.
+
+Cheers - @markblundeberg
\ No newline at end of file