MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzs0w4L7ma42RCzT5dYDcG2aY1_04G1khcFPFPE6mmB=-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:31:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqoq4pkXLS=4rKGOLGU0_0mq1_yMOHmLw73m=apiMRMpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112)
Precedence: list

--001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality
had was simply op_maturity.
At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged
sidechains' design.

I kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new
operands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine. Do
we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that
discovery?
I hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.
As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become
much more clear with this change.

--001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p dir="ltr">I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality had was simply op_maturity.<br>
At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged sidechains&#39; design.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new operands to return if whatever they&#39;re checking/verifying fails, fine. Do we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that discovery?<br>
I hope not, but if that&#39;s the case my vote is for CMV.<br>
As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become much more clear with this change.</p>

--001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e--