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
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jtimon@jtimon.cc>) id 1YsFfj-0001I3-43
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 19:16:55 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YsFfg-0004ET-CW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 19:16:55 +0000
Received: by wicnf17 with SMTP id nf17so28496562wic.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 12 May 2015 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=KBX8wD54lzlX/dQU2YPlogcpK+RaSswZ/lD4iEVxES8=;
b=B/D9VmFfUiYrCnKxbD0Q8IP6+ZHMZKrx/ZWjdipAOecfrMxBoU5xLliMDpPAEMijc/
+9Zhy564ieokCTg3KD254VRMNXQCvTBKqk7smvb7eJGu7lBghIH5PJV4S22cOZbpGnvd
Rv4Uu5BytiqGa6awSFUkiUcqx8AyhRmhNZ6kjS6+Q55kSzkk1OoYQzuDZHDlLVi+CBp/
dz5OrB6J0WgApK5s4WFLbf8ffbszYAZWAjSqYtBl0E5ro7z/DfVkaXI32DWd0A7xvb2t
rJRMomf83qTMAtKKybru3i94hM7bAPUxg8CwOQFiJCiCApGsB22HU8+m+B9QmvpBavzX
36hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmNKMgKZcRWtbTBpx+PMr3NRy7+ORsVSw/ggWawba8d8A7PFXgEbQ5JpVn1+jV95pEo/437
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.188.193 with SMTP id gc1mr32199598wic.7.1431458206185;
Tue, 12 May 2015 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.124.2 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150509091201.GA15088@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
<CADJgMzs3D=6pNOQhU3ubi6=C8javRtwL0VuGFWvU+6SiuB0YWg@mail.gmail.com>
<20150509091201.GA15088@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 21:16:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqVu9OqNpOgCa6hMw3CXp7ePWTaAGPtMq4T9rG658K=ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1YsFfg-0004ET-CW
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 19:16:55 -0000
This saves us ocodes for later but it's uglier and produces slightly
bigger scripts.
If we're convinced it's worth it, seems like the right way to do it,
and certainly cltv and rclv/op_maturity are related.
But let's not forget that we can always use this same trick with the
last opcode to get 2^64 brand new opcodes.
So I'm not convinced at all on whether we want #5496 or #6124.
But it would be nice to decide and stop blocking this.
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:54:33AM +0100, Btc Drak wrote:
>> > That said, if people have strong feelings about this, I would be willing
>> > to make OP_CLTV work as follows:
>> >
>> > <nLockTime> 1 OP_CLTV
>> >
>> > Where the 1 selects absolute mode, and all others act as OP_NOP's. A
>> > future relative CLTV could then be a future soft-fork implemented as
>> > follows:
>> >
>> > <relative nLockTime> 2 OP_CLTV
>> >
>> > On the bad side it'd be two or three days of work to rewrite all the
>> > existing tests and example code and update the BIP, and (slightly) gets
>> > us away from the well-tested existing implementation. It also may
>> > complicate the codebase compared to sticking with just doing a Script
>> > v2.0, with the additional execution environment data required for v2.0
>> > scripts cleanly separated out. But all in all, the above isn't too big
>> > of a deal.
>>
>>
>> Adding a parameter to OP_CLTV makes it much more flexible and is the most
>> economic use of precious NOPs.
>> The extra time required is ok and it would be good to make this change to
>> the PR in time for the feature freeze.
>
> Done!
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5496#issuecomment-100454263
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000012c438a597ad15df697888be579f4f818a30517cd60fbdc8
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
