1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YsFm5-0007OY-Cw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 19:23:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.171; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YsFm4-0004RI-KT
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 19:23:29 +0000
Received: by lbcga7 with SMTP id ga7so13620760lbc.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.72.104 with SMTP id c8mr13499069lbv.77.1431458602245;
Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqVu9OqNpOgCa6hMw3CXp7ePWTaAGPtMq4T9rG658K=ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
<CADJgMzs3D=6pNOQhU3ubi6=C8javRtwL0VuGFWvU+6SiuB0YWg@mail.gmail.com>
<20150509091201.GA15088@savin.petertodd.org>
<CABm2gDqVu9OqNpOgCa6hMw3CXp7ePWTaAGPtMq4T9rG658K=ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBh8GQdTurvEkMB1+oSWhLgO4Oq2Cu7WRkWp32fRJfaCiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YsFm4-0004RI-KT
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] CLTV opcode allocation; long-term plans?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 19:23:29 -0000
--001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I have no strong opinion, but a slight preference for separate opcodes.
Reason: given the current progress, they'll likely be deployed
independently, and maybe the end result is not something that cleanly fits
the current CLTV argument structure.
--001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
<p dir="ltr">I have no strong opinion, but a slight preference for separate opcodes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Reason: given the current progress, they'll likely be deployed independently, and maybe the end result is not something that cleanly fits the current CLTV argument structure.</p>
--001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8--
|
