rich1.0npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edhttps://nostr.ae/npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ednjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24 📝 Original message:BIP68 introduces relative lock-time semantics to part of the nSequence field leaving the majority of bits undefined for other future applications. 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 available for future use cases, thus we have acknowledged there will be completely different usecases that take advantage of unused nSequence bits. 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. Suggestions:- CHECKMATURITYVERIFY RELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY RCLTV We could of course softfork additional meaning into OP_CSV each time we add new sequence number usecases, but that would become obscure and confusing. We have already shown there is no shortage of opcodes so it makes no sense to cram everything into one generic opcode. TL;DR: let's give BIP112 opcode a name that reflects it's actual usecase rather than focusing on the bitcoin internals. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564/files#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R1223 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/a775f63a/attachment.html>