Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112)

From: "Eric Lombrozo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:14:55 +0000

>From a system developer standpoint, CHECKMATURITYVERIFY ties together 
the semantics of this opcode with another existing feature in the system 
(coinbase maturity).

HOWEVER...

from an application developer standpoint, I think the concept of a 
timelock is more relevant. Maturity is a concept that was introduced for 
the sake of reducing the disruptive impact of reorgs. Miners would 
prefer to be able to spend the coins immediately, but instead they are 
forced to wait due to inherent limitations of the system. Timelocks, on 
the other hand, are typically used to control when funds can be moved. 
In these use cases, one or more of the parties involved explicitly want 
there to be a delay even if there were an idealized situation in which 
consensus is always reached instantaneously and there were never any 
reorgs.

Moreover, since we already have CLTV, adding RCLTV or some variant 
thereof makes the relationship between the two more explicit.

So my vote goes to RCLTV or RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

As for whether to explicitly use CHECK_..._VERIFY, consider that with 
segregated witness it will be possible to add opcodes that can push 
values onto the stack (rather than just hard failing or NOP), so there's 
something to be said for naming consistency.

- Eric

------ Original Message ------
From: "Jorge Timón" <[email-masked]>
To: "Btc Drak" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bitcoin Dev" <[email-masked]>
Sent: 11/24/2015 4:31:55 AM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY 
(BIP112)

>I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent 
>functionality had was simply op_maturity.
>At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged 
>sidechains' design.
>
>I kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new 
>operands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine. 
>Do we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that 
>discovery?
>I hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.
>As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can 
>become much more clear with this change.
>