Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1YqPQf-0003UE-1A
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 17:17:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.115 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.115; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk; 
Received: from outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.149.115])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1YqPQd-0000cr-T7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 17:17:45 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
	by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47HHbVR057009;
	Thu, 7 May 2015 18:17:37 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
	[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47HHXZ3060616
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
	Thu, 7 May 2015 18:17:36 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:17:32 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Message-ID: <20150507171732.GA6033@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
	<87lhh188zw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9amGYk9869ThD9tj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87lhh188zw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: f4d7a4c6-f4dc-11e4-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	aAdMdgUUFVQNAgsB AmMbWlxeUVp7WmU7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
	VklWR1pVCwQmRRgG fmZ2OBpycQVAeXg+ YkNqXz4NWBB9JEIu
	RFMCETlVeGZhPWQC AkNRcR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES
	HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4gOgIC DxcaFjIjEAUMQyE0
	JBU6K1kaTw4VNUM9 dEcsQ1dQKxsbDBYJ dwAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
	anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YqPQd-0000cr-T7
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 17:17:45 -0000


--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:05:47AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> writes:
> > That said, if people have strong feelings about this, I would be willing
> > to make OP_CLTV work as follows:
> >
> >     <nLockTime> 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:
> >
> >     <relative nLockTime> 2 OP_CLTV
>=20
> Mildly prefer to put that the other way around.
>=20
> ie. the OP_NOP1 becomes OP_EXTENSION_PREFIX, the next op defines which
> extended opcode it is (must be a push).

There's no good way to implement that option - when the OP_NOPx is
executed all that's available to it without a lot of complex work is
what's already been pushed to the stack, not what will be pushed to the
stack in the future.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000002761482983864328320badf24d137101fab9a5861a59d30

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=lcSE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj--