Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01131899 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85923210 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:36:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [162.186.187.200] (unknown [172.56.7.62]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C31D957249; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:36:15 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Matt Corallo Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:36:07 +0000 To: Nicolas Dorier , Nicolas Dorier via bitcoin-dev , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <6938112D-77D2-44FC-8FF8-13967E9673F2@mattcorallo.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime (Btc Drak) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:36:21 -0000 On August 13, 2015 7:34:03 PM GMT+03:00, Nicolas Dorier via bitcoin-dev wrote: >Would be wonderful to have this pushed together with CLTV and BIP68. >If BIP68 get pushed in the next fork, this CSV is a no brainer. > >Was there a competing RCLTV implementation somewhere that did not >depend on >BIP68 for information ? I don't manage to find it. I think all such competing proposals are dropped because this seemed like a better idea. Feel free to revive one/come up with one, though. Matt