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
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <btcdrak@gmail.com>) id 1YpR8X-0008IO-C9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 May 2015 00:55:01 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YpR8W-0004CJ-BF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 May 2015 00:55:01 +0000
Received: by wgyo15 with SMTP id o15so166655968wgy.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 04 May 2015 17:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.206.229 with SMTP id lr5mr618280wic.86.1430787294342;
Mon, 04 May 2015 17:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.136.196 with HTTP; Mon, 4 May 2015 17:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 01:54:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzs3D=6pNOQhU3ubi6=C8javRtwL0VuGFWvU+6SiuB0YWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38a226db28405154b205b
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(btcdrak[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YpR8W-0004CJ-BF
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, 05 May 2015 00:55:01 -0000
--001a11c38a226db28405154b205b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Matt Corallo brought up=C2=B9 the issue of OP_NOP scarcity on the mempool
> only CLTV pull-req=C2=B2:
>
> "I like merging this, but doing both CLTV things in one swoop would b=
e
> really nice. Certainly if we're gonna use one of the precious few
> OP_NOPs we have we might as well make it more flexible."
>
> [snip]
> 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.
Drak
--001a11c38a226db28405154b205b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, May 4, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span>=
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.=
8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-st=
yle:solid;padding-left:1ex">Matt Corallo brought up=C2=B9 the issue of OP_N=
OP scarcity on the mempool<br>
only CLTV pull-req=C2=B2:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "I like merging this, but doing both CLTV things in one =
swoop would be<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 really nice. Certainly if we're gonna use one of the prec=
ious few<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 OP_NOPs we have we might as well make it more flexible."=
<br><br></blockquote><div>[snip]=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-colo=
r:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">That said, if =
people have strong feelings about this, I would be willing<br>
to make OP_CLTV work as follows:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <nLockTime> 1 OP_CLTV<br>
<br>
Where the 1 selects absolute mode, and all others act as OP_NOP's. A<br=
>
future relative CLTV could then be a future soft-fork implemented as<br>
follows:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <relative nLockTime> 2 OP_CLTV<br>
<br>
On the bad side it'd be two or three days of work to rewrite all the<br=
>
existing tests and example code and update the BIP, and (slightly) gets<br>
us away from the well-tested existing implementation. It also may<br>
complicate the codebase compared to sticking with just doing a Script<br>
v2.0, with the additional execution environment data required for v2.0<br>
scripts cleanly separated out. But all in all, the above isn't too big<=
br>
of a deal.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Adding a parameter to OP_CLTV ma=
kes it much more flexible and is the most economic use of precious NOPs.</d=
iv><div>The extra time required=C2=A0<span style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);fon=
t-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px=
;line-height:17px;white-space:pre-wrap">is ok and it would</span>=C2=A0be g=
ood to make this change to the PR in time for the feature freeze.<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>Drak</div></div></div></div>
--001a11c38a226db28405154b205b--
|
