{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24\n📝 Original message:I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality\nhad was simply op_maturity.\nAt least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged\nsidechains' design.\n\nI kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new\noperands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine. Do\nwe have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that\ndiscovery?\nI hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.\nAs said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become\nmuch more clear with this change.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/5b9476f9/attachment.html\u003e"}