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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39CF6409
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:31:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com
[209.85.213.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEABC87
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:31:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vkha189 with SMTP id a189so10049479vkh.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=SSwdLqQJDTYaiXB09qpKu1m2rWMz1xa/cUW709Sdwjg=;
b=QqJhaFXnQ+hU68D6dcgO6wb0VNsi48DKWQbR/I9w4yLcpNx7mMLsViL/f9BdlguU4F
3h4CIW5GBV9qJThFWEPMWkxKSu5LHIjGNtO91Y2qYR81tDfJhG6lexVlbt35ttXvmS7o
h/tW/T8M1GaXfwdWKCqmGpIzD9SOWJgajBnlgC023wFENpRAvCFCtxnD14AIF5cq2Q7l
99cYX1m37vGrnR3RWuI3VTwsw/itFVuyc8qMVmJa32YsJSMGwslBiQLCHEtXSD9sUsY8
K6l9F12t4WL/rfdxvY/N7afU1uQun+6APrsN153J7Agk2LYkIUNrZFI4AH56w9zjdBeR
s03g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=SSwdLqQJDTYaiXB09qpKu1m2rWMz1xa/cUW709Sdwjg=;
b=JqI/DoJrB5qzxJmIZPCB0Pl/Og+DGFcHDIr47i7U0MKkCSyN/0BDu2ApRUplRLFHJV
5gmdMHOoJMLldcinmK4oy9lju1HXlaODdD9hMaUi97p1/kSexL2klCs1RIs0W+QqKJTA
9N+rR7RGx+2M5aXNVWjkf4slmDxa7DhjPL0dQLbOJxsgniPrSCRYju4mI471wXM+m5KL
kAvDm3OvOGq3F5fdGedb/E3haKffJv/UKPAnVLJTn9MZUIlpW4+T7n1T0ha6cznkKMRv
cWhdzHyB5A9F07HuBcl5axFe7aHFEAwe87Y2KD9E/HvX4JIHghprJXpyN5o7OhKJt1Sa
6Ptg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDjyYP8m9ELzslcgWrnN4G4z0J6lxK8j3U+KrfiyesCFXVGW4bbHxTK0eKl6VcNgFZbwG4
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.34.196 with SMTP id i187mr25332667vki.2.1448368315815;
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:31:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqoq4pkXLS=4rKGOLGU0_0mq1_yMOHmLw73m=apiMRMpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:26:30 +0000
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 12:31:57 -0000
--001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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.
--001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<p dir="ltr">I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality had was simply op_maturity.<br>
At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged sidechains' design.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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?<br>
I hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.<br>
As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become much more clear with this change.</p>
--001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e--
|
