Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1XuC4j-00080t-Ne
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:18:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.115 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.115; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk; 
Received: from outmail149115.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.149.115])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1XuC4h-0007vU-Pk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:18:29 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
	by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id sAS3ILWY061898;
	Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:18:21 GMT
Received: from [25.120.170.107] ([24.114.55.4]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id sAS3IGOM017886
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:18:18 GMT
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSr7-s-Bg-6Fjs1=dg0WR4JZfWbx2hnSyU4iXRNKHma4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63C13C3D-5333-4DEA-A42F-A4685DDE09DA@ricmoo.com>
	<CAAS2fgSr7-s-Bg-6Fjs1=dg0WR4JZfWbx2hnSyU4iXRNKHma4Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:18:06 -0500
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com>
Message-ID: <3A394B8C-FD24-4134-A8B8-CCAF63ECB5B0@petertodd.org>
X-Server-Quench: 33907ca9-76ad-11e4-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	aQdMdAoUFloCAgsB AmIbW1deUVV7WGo7 aQ5PbARZfE9LQQF1
	VE5MXVMcV3QLAmV2 eWMeUx56fwMIf3d2 YQhhXXlbWxcrfFt6
	RB8ACGwHMGN9OmMW Vl1YdwFReQMbfxoR O1cxNiYHcQ51Pz4z
	GA41ejw8IzhbLzxQ TwcRGBo4YH5DQGN0 ThYOVRIXKmYlag4Q
	CzsNCWI9OWsvH38T H2pAWFQBLh4IG0sY WSkA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.55.4/465
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
	3.0 UC_GIBBERISH_OBFU Multiple instances of "word VERYLONGGIBBERISH
	word"
X-Headers-End: 1XuC4h-0007vU-Pk
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 65 and
	OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY	inquiry...
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: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:18:29 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 27 November 2014 18:46:23 GMT-05:00, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip 100% accurate commentary from gmaxwell>

>The things you're suggesting were all carefully designed out of the
>proposal, perhaps the BIP text needs some more clarification to make
>this more clear.

It does; it is still a draft. That said I think writing up some actual working examples, in code, of CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY using protocols is a bigger priority. Micropayment channels comes to mind, as well as a greenaddress-style wallet.

When I get a chance I'm going to rebase the initial implementation and add to it a command-line-flag to verify CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY as an IsStandard() rule for testing purposes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1

iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJUd+luMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhWmcB/0UK030Q6TSpi95x0Gh
hGYaSAInUWpbZzZtP+1AFrGDGRdGo0glFFf8xggI+U5kuc0woPYrn/VEGcprPhvs
KQFZrirXVr7Q09TVlHiPDen5v3Y7xwL5kQDUrBPP71Pe3R2o6IbfdwxsZ8+yYso8
hY6WQmImQpKJd4gEd76w1QrF8Btl1Jz/PGh4EE3GSPGlflvBwA6igSiRoD/czb1x
63y4AsPEil2hrmIjTZHqwnl40BqnmZ8qpNLWeIEjE++pbkxLTjvUcPy03/wtTWZA
5dCGeY5WavgZsPazhSdaTtM5/7wPSQQ0PDXNHdHgmewkvbyBpy78orV/3bEG+xFz
2SWi
=4OmI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----