From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D9682C for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 04:02:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA15EA6 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 04:02:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 3A1AB140319; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:02:54 +1100 (AEDT) From: Rusty Russell To: Eric Lombrozo , Mark Friedenbach , Btc Drak In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 14:32:45 +1030 Message-ID: <87ziy0qeca.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 04:02:56 -0000 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev writes: >>>From an app developer's perspective, I think it is pretty blatantly > clear that relative timelock is *the* critical exposed functionality > intended here. As someone who actually developed scripts using CSV, I agree with Mark (and Matt). The relative locktime stuff isn't in this opcode, it's in the nSequence calculation. So, I vote to keep CSV called as it is. Thanks, Rusty.