MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-tLsDtNcXtYU=J7mNWYd8-4VGMVDGJp7Fm_BiVw-LXwhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMztgE_GkbrsP7zCEHNPA3P6T=aSFfhkcN-q=gVhWP0vKXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-tLsDtNcXtYU=J7mNWYd8-4VGMVDGJp7Fm_BiVw-LXwhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:20:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRYrzcxt3ecrCXLHfV+bMXT7BD+n-K++cxhtyXrWLeEEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for
 relative locktime
Precedence: list

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:
> As per the rules of BIP 1, I hereby request that the BIP editor please
> assign an official number to this work. The idea has been discussed before
> on the bitcoin-dev mailing list:
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008452.html
>
> And a reference implementation is available here:
>
> https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/checksequenceverify

I think it's important to allow some time for discussion with the
actual proposed text up; as understandings can shift significantly. :)
Btcdrak already asked me for numbers prior to posting text at all and
I asked him to post text...