📅 Original date posted:2015-11-26
📝 Original message:After a little more though (and some comments from aj), I realize that the opcode naming convention is actually CHECK <condition > VERIFY.
Therefore, the full opcode name should be CHECKRELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY.
However, this name is ridiculously long, so at least some part will require abbreviation.
In typical script example usage, most sensible seems to be to abbreviate both CLTV and CRLTV.
- Eric
On November 24, 2015 5:14:55 PM PST, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>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" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>To: "Btc Drak" <btcdrak at gmail.com>
>Cc: "Bitcoin Dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>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.
>>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151126/6326f2b7/attachment.html>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 17:45:07
in reply to nevent1q…g6jv
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqPublished at
2023-06-07 17:45:07Event JSON
{
"id": "692a0ba7718f61629f1c58d59feab18a34de92b98d31917374ef8d5bb129c75e",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686159907,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"65176681f906c98989ff4af1f66f139d152a7b5de4ac302f54d83aa23ee2fe52",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2680b661e1159ef63e8631259c320c82d7c12785d72b0c6a9a6e0035ef9f7bc0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-26\n📝 Original message:After a little more though (and some comments from aj), I realize that the opcode naming convention is actually CHECK \u003ccondition \u003e VERIFY.\n\nTherefore, the full opcode name should be CHECKRELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY.\n\nHowever, this name is ridiculously long, so at least some part will require abbreviation.\n\nIn typical script example usage, most sensible seems to be to abbreviate both CLTV and CRLTV.\n\n- Eric\n\nOn November 24, 2015 5:14:55 PM PST, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003eFrom a system developer standpoint, CHECKMATURITYVERIFY ties together \n\u003ethe semantics of this opcode with another existing feature in the\n\u003esystem \n\u003e(coinbase maturity).\n\u003e\n\u003eHOWEVER...\n\u003e\n\u003efrom an application developer standpoint, I think the concept of a \n\u003etimelock is more relevant. Maturity is a concept that was introduced\n\u003efor \n\u003ethe sake of reducing the disruptive impact of reorgs. Miners would \n\u003eprefer to be able to spend the coins immediately, but instead they are \n\u003eforced to wait due to inherent limitations of the system. Timelocks, on\n\u003e\n\u003ethe other hand, are typically used to control when funds can be moved. \n\u003eIn these use cases, one or more of the parties involved explicitly want\n\u003e\n\u003ethere to be a delay even if there were an idealized situation in which \n\u003econsensus is always reached instantaneously and there were never any \n\u003ereorgs.\n\u003e\n\u003eMoreover, since we already have CLTV, adding RCLTV or some variant \n\u003ethereof makes the relationship between the two more explicit.\n\u003e\n\u003eSo my vote goes to RCLTV or RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.\n\u003e\n\u003eAs for whether to explicitly use CHECK_..._VERIFY, consider that with \n\u003esegregated witness it will be possible to add opcodes that can push \n\u003evalues onto the stack (rather than just hard failing or NOP), so\n\u003ethere's \n\u003esomething to be said for naming consistency.\n\u003e\n\u003e- Eric\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e------ Original Message ------\n\u003eFrom: \"Jorge Timón\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003eTo: \"Btc Drak\" \u003cbtcdrak at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003eCc: \"Bitcoin Dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003eSent: 11/24/2015 4:31:55 AM\n\u003eSubject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY \n\u003e(BIP112)\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003eI agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent \n\u003e\u003efunctionality had was simply op_maturity.\n\u003e\u003eAt least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003esidechains' design.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003eI kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new \n\u003e\u003eoperands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003eDo we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003ediscovery?\n\u003e\u003eI hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.\n\u003e\u003eAs said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can \n\u003e\u003ebecome much more clear with this change.\n\u003e\u003e\n\n-- \nSent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151126/6326f2b7/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b5f94a4439865223f9f9ad8d9dd59119d8834865dd61210a57d2fcff2092929c07fbd6fd5a63a78c74d5a43032fc2105b1e0333a84bb321675d4a76c05f5410d"
}