From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:20:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151124122040.GA16003@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1333 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:30:52AM +0000, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP68 introduces relative lock-time semantics to part of the nSequence
> field leaving the majority of bits undefined for other future applications.
>
> BIP112 introduces opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (OP_CSV) that is specifically
> limited to verifying transaction inputs according to BIP68's relative
> lock-time[1], yet the _name_ OP_CSV is much boarder than that. We spent
> months limiting the number of bits used in BIP68 so they would be available
> for future use cases, thus we have acknowledged there will be completely
> different usecases that take advantage of unused nSequence bits.
>
> For this reason I believe the BIP112 should be renamed specifically for
> it's usecase, which is verifying the time/maturity of transaction inputs
> relative to their inclusion in a block.
>
> Suggestions:-
>
> CHECKMATURITYVERIFY
Definitely this one.
Although I wouldn't rush to make the change just yet - I for one am busy
writing some test programs to actually use BIP112, and in theory they
might say the more general CSV concept is better.
Whatever we call it, deciding on that is a simple s/FOO/BAR/ prior to
release.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008cd594ba6601fcc5e9e919b30630076c64657209b13c7b4
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-24 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-24 10:30 Btc Drak
2015-11-24 12:20 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-11-24 12:35 ` Jorge Timón
2015-11-24 12:31 ` Jorge Timón
2015-11-25 1:14 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-11-26 21:32 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-11-26 22:25 ` Peter Todd
2015-11-25 23:05 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-11-25 23:41 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-11-26 22:23 ` Matt Corallo
2015-11-27 4:02 ` Rusty Russell
2015-11-27 8:10 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-11-27 4:08 ` Dave Scotese
2015-11-27 10:14 ` Jorge Timón
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151124122040.GA16003@savin.petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=btcdrak@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox