Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Yr0nw-0004gK-2U
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 09 May 2015 09:12:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.80 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.80; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149080.authsmtp.com; 
Received: from outmail149080.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.80])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1Yr0nu-0004ED-Cc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 09 May 2015 09:12:16 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
	by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t499C70M060675;
	Sat, 9 May 2015 10:12:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
	[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t499C1Cd041351
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
	Sat, 9 May 2015 10:12:04 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 05:12:01 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150509091201.GA15088@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CADJgMzs3D=6pNOQhU3ubi6=C8javRtwL0VuGFWvU+6SiuB0YWg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzs3D=6pNOQhU3ubi6=C8javRtwL0VuGFWvU+6SiuB0YWg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 75d1a3c5-f62b-11e4-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	aAdMdgsUFVQNAgsB AmMbWlReUV97WWc7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
	VklWR1pVCwQmRRgI D20fIU1ycwRFfX8+ bUFqXz5cWRB7JEUu
	R1MCE29UeGZhPWQC AkNRcR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES
	HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4gOgIC DxcaFjIjEAUMQyE0
	JBU6K1kaTw4VNUM9 dEcsQ1dQKxsbDBYJ dwAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
	anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Yr0nu-0004ED-Cc
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: Sat, 09 May 2015 09:12:16 -0000


--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.
>=20
>=20
> 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

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000012c438a597ad15df697888be579f4f818a30517cd60fbdc8

--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=zosr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5--