{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ed","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ed","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24\n📝 Original message:BIP68 introduces relative lock-time semantics to part of the nSequence\nfield leaving the majority of bits undefined for other future applications.\n\nBIP112 introduces opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (OP_CSV) that is specifically\nlimited to verifying transaction inputs according to BIP68's relative\nlock-time[1], yet the _name_ OP_CSV is much boarder than that. We spent\nmonths limiting the number of bits used in BIP68 so they would be available\nfor future use cases, thus we have acknowledged there will be completely\ndifferent usecases that take advantage of unused nSequence bits.\n\nFor this reason I believe the BIP112 should be renamed specifically for\nit's usecase, which is verifying the time/maturity of transaction inputs\nrelative to their inclusion in a block.\n\nSuggestions:-\n\nCHECKMATURITYVERIFY\nRELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY\nRCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY\nRCLTV\n\nWe could of course softfork additional meaning into OP_CSV each time we add\nnew sequence number usecases, but that would become obscure and confusing.\nWe have already shown there is no shortage of opcodes so it makes no sense\nto cram everything into one generic opcode.\n\nTL;DR: let's give BIP112 opcode a name that reflects it's actual usecase\nrather than focusing on the bitcoin internals.\n\n[1]\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564/files#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R1223\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/a775f63a/attachment.html\u003e"}