Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqPTD-0007nG-PZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 17:20:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of ozlabs.org designates 103.22.144.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=103.22.144.67; envelope-from=rusty@ozlabs.org; helo=ozlabs.org; Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqPTC-0000hA-LR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 17:20:23 +0000 Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 04D4D14028F; Fri, 8 May 2015 03:00:52 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Peter Todd , bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 11:05:47 +0930 Message-ID: <87lhh188zw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours before Received: date -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.8 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YqPTC-0000hA-LR Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] CLTV opcode allocation; long-term plans? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 17:20:23 -0000 Peter Todd writes: > That said, if people have strong feelings about this, I would be willing > to make OP_CLTV work as follows: > > 1 OP_CLTV > > Where the 1 selects absolute mode, and all others act as OP_NOP's. A > future relative CLTV could then be a future soft-fork implemented as > follows: > > 2 OP_CLTV Mildly prefer to put that the other way around. ie. the OP_NOP1 becomes OP_EXTENSION_PREFIX, the next op defines which extended opcode it is (must be a push). Cheers, Rusty.