On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
What I was describing was an attempt to fix a similar proposal by Mark
Friedenbach, but it didn't needed fixing: I was simply
misunderstanding it.
Mark's RCLTV is completely reorg safe, so there's no need for the 100
block restriction. It also keeps the script validation independent
from the utxo.
Here's is how it works:

The operator takes a relative_height parameter and it checks that the
nSequence of the input is lower than that parameter.

Additionally, a new check at the transaction level:

for (unsigned int i = 0; i < tx.vin.size(); i++) {
// ...
            if (coins->nHeight + tx.vin[i].nSequence < nSpendHeight)
                return state.Invalid(false, REJECT_INVALID,
"bad-txns-non-final-input");
// ...
}

Well, this is assuming that we're only using it with heights and not timestamps.
Mark, feel free to elaborate further.

Does dropping timestamp refer just to RCLTV or absolutely CLTV also? For absolute CLTV I think it's important to have timestamps so that trust fund use cases are practical (e.g. spendable on 18th birthday), because the exact date a future block will be mined on is unpredictable if it's far enough in the future (out by days or even weeks).