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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <rusty@ozlabs.org>) id 1YqPTD-0007nG-PZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 17:20:23 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of ozlabs.org
designates 103.22.144.67 as permitted sender)
client-ip=103.22.144.67; envelope-from=rusty@ozlabs.org;
helo=ozlabs.org;
Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqPTC-0000hA-LR
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 17:20:23 +0000
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id 04D4D14028F; Fri, 8 May 2015 03:00:52 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 11:05:47 +0930
Message-ID: <87lhh188zw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
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_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
0.8 DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours before Received: date
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.8 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YqPTC-0000hA-LR
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: Thu, 07 May 2015 17:20:23 -0000
Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> writes:
> 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
Mildly prefer to put that the other way around.
ie. the OP_NOP1 becomes OP_EXTENSION_PREFIX, the next op defines which
extended opcode it is (must be a push).
Cheers,
Rusty.
|
