1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EA49273
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:20:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.82])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568B6135
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:20:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tAOCKjul051180;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:20:45 GMT
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 tAOCKeTG031561
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:20:43 GMT
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:20:40 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20151124122040.GA16003@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="17pEHd4RhPHOinZp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: c89b0f3c-92a5-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAYUFloCAgsB AmMbWlZeUl17XWA7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRW1+ dWVLNm5ydARDfn8+ YE5gXj4IVE0odRB+
EVNdFzwDeGZhPWUC WEJRIh5UcAJPfxhM bwR6UXVDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd awURIEgUSFoKADN0 QRkHEH0hGldNbAUe
BD8dB2chMWA6H3sf C3oPaBpYGT4qU1QE XikA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
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-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:20:48 -0000
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:30:52AM +0000, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP68 introduces relative lock-time semantics to part of the nSequence
> field leaving the majority of bits undefined for other future application=
s.
>=20
> 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 availab=
le
> for future use cases, thus we have acknowledged there will be completely
> different usecases that take advantage of unused nSequence bits.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Suggestions:-
>=20
> CHECKMATURITYVERIFY
Definitely this one.
Although I wouldn't rush to make the change just yet - I for one am busy
writing some test programs to actually use BIP112, and in theory they
might say the more general CSV concept is better.
Whatever we call it, deciding on that is a simple s/FOO/BAR/ prior to
release.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008cd594ba6601fcc5e9e919b30630076c64657209b13c7b4
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGrBAEBCACVBQJWVFYUXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMWJlNTFkMmY5ZGJmZmQ3NjA1Y2VjODY0MzNhNTg4OTE4
MWNhOGMzYjU5MTdlZTQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkftriQf9GfmLXF2aBfHimoSPqyNrzFx3
JJcpZXb0XpxYzooQkHetT4z64l+QQ9g5XO672aw+Eit1OTDIgg15jpiT0aRfQ6V0
Pz7C7+D+unYlFrCt1qZ6ETG9emClYMmC7MzjsGKH3OruURsmKIb7MPVrSf9pnLk/
0yyql5mPAuKot1GiCl3scwb3kDxMXizGxbvpw5H5UvszIqfCG1+N9YnWF4PUxc4W
JHjOIj9zqdGExUDs8stP3KHNxeT8YXotJxDY1SmiIWVo+O/gLEPMSLpdKEELSr0a
HBMvPqBc1XNjBi5wF9yTYy++kdkJ8QuTbSJPb1CWEKBKnhAvuskb+P3am1OhHw==
=o2h7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp--
|
