📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24
📝 Original message: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
RELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY
RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
RCLTV
We could of course softfork additional meaning into OP_CSV each time we add
new sequence number usecases, but that would become obscure and confusing.
We have already shown there is no shortage of opcodes so it makes no sense
to cram everything into one generic opcode.
TL;DR: let's give BIP112 opcode a name that reflects it's actual usecase
rather than focusing on the bitcoin internals.
[1]
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564/files#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R1223
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/a775f63a/attachment.html>;
Btc Drak [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lh…zg7ed
2023-06-07 17:45:06
in reply to nevent1q…c85t
Author Public Key
npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edPublished at
2023-06-07 17:45:06Event JSON
{
"id": "f53a443d4a7b3d2fc3a968fb97c0f84b5e47021fd020d7c1cb444e7f57fba9eb",
"pubkey": "fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83",
"created_at": 1686159906,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"65176681f906c98989ff4af1f66f139d152a7b5de4ac302f54d83aa23ee2fe52",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24\n📝 Original message:BIP68 introduces relative lock-time semantics to part of the nSequence\nfield leaving the majority of bits undefined for other future applications.\n\nBIP112 introduces opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (OP_CSV) that is specifically\nlimited to verifying transaction inputs according to BIP68's relative\nlock-time[1], yet the _name_ OP_CSV is much boarder than that. We spent\nmonths limiting the number of bits used in BIP68 so they would be available\nfor future use cases, thus we have acknowledged there will be completely\ndifferent usecases that take advantage of unused nSequence bits.\n\nFor this reason I believe the BIP112 should be renamed specifically for\nit's usecase, which is verifying the time/maturity of transaction inputs\nrelative to their inclusion in a block.\n\nSuggestions:-\n\nCHECKMATURITYVERIFY\nRELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY\nRCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY\nRCLTV\n\nWe could of course softfork additional meaning into OP_CSV each time we add\nnew sequence number usecases, but that would become obscure and confusing.\nWe have already shown there is no shortage of opcodes so it makes no sense\nto cram everything into one generic opcode.\n\nTL;DR: let's give BIP112 opcode a name that reflects it's actual usecase\nrather than focusing on the bitcoin internals.\n\n[1]\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564/files#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R1223\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/a775f63a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "bb29d9e0f4fc12537112dff181d4fde40a34eb70b4f68ee44a1c5a57b1892a9fc4cb330f2ac0f2aad4376ab7cda74421cd65f4657efd83b4cbf3da9aa81d831f"
}