MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:30:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148ef102d4d5c052546d7bb
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112)
Precedence: list

--001a1148ef102d4d5c052546d7bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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

--001a1148ef102d4d5c052546d7bb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">BIP68 introduces relative lock-time semantics to part of t=
he nSequence field leaving the majority of bits undefined for other future =
applications.<div><br></div><div>BIP112 introduces opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERI=
FY (OP_CSV) that is specifically limited to verifying transaction inputs ac=
cording to BIP68&#39;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 BIP=
68 so they would be available for future use cases, thus we have acknowledg=
ed there will be completely different usecases that take advantage of unuse=
d nSequence bits.</div><div><br></div><div>For this reason I believe the BI=
P112 should be renamed specifically for it&#39;s usecase, which is verifyin=
g the time/maturity of transaction inputs relative to their inclusion in a =
block.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Suggestions:-</div><div><br></div><div=
>CHECKMATURITYVERIFY<br></div><div>RELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY<br></div><div>RCH=
ECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY<br></div><div>RCLTV</div></div><div><br></div><div>We cou=
ld of course softfork additional meaning into OP_CSV each time we add new s=
equence number usecases, but that would become obscure and confusing. We ha=
ve already shown there is no shortage of opcodes so it makes no sense to cr=
am everything into one generic opcode.</div><div><br></div><div>TL;DR: let&=
#39;s give BIP112 opcode a name that reflects it&#39;s actual usecase rathe=
r than focusing on the bitcoin internals.</div><div><br></div><div>[1]=C2=
=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564/files#diff-be290=
5e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R1223">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6=
564/files#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R1223</a><br></div></div>

--001a1148ef102d4d5c052546d7bb--