Re: [Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV proposal)

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:20:04PM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
> > And a new softfork rule could enforce that all new CTxIn set nHeight
> > to the correct height in which its corresponding prevout got into the
> > chain.
> > That would remove the need for the TxOutputGetter param in
> > bitcoinconsensus_verify_script, but unfortunately it is not reorg safe
> > (apart from other ugly implementation details).
> 
> Wait, wait, this can be made reorg-safe and more backards compatible.
> The new validation rule at the tx validation level (currently in
> main::CheckInputs()) would be

<snip>

So, seems to me that RCLTV opens up a whole rats nest of design
decisions and compromises that CLTV doesn't. Yet CLTV itself is a big
step forward, it's been implemented on Viacoin for the past few months
with no issues found, and has an extremely simple and easy to audit
implementation.

I think I'm going to argue we implement it as-is in a soft-fork. Pieter
Wuille's been working on a new way to handle soft-fork upgrades in the
block nVersion field, so this would be a good opportunity to add
something simple and well tested, and also make sure the new nVersion
soft-fork mechanism works. Equally, doing both at the same time ensures
we don't burn yet another version bit.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000e7980aab9c096c46e7f34c43a661c5cb2ea71525ebb8af7

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]