From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) id 1YsFm5-0007OY-Cw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 May 2015 19:23:29 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.171; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YsFm4-0004RI-KT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 May 2015 19:23:29 +0000 Received: by lbcga7 with SMTP id ga7so13620760lbc.1 for ; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.72.104 with SMTP id c8mr13499069lbv.77.1431458602245; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150504050715.GA18856@savin.petertodd.org> <20150509091201.GA15088@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:23:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[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: 1YsFm4-0004RI-KT Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 19:23:29 -0000 --001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I have no strong opinion, but a slight preference for separate opcodes. Reason: given the current progress, they'll likely be deployed independently, and maybe the end result is not something that cleanly fits the current CLTV argument structure. --001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

I have no strong opinion, but a slight preference for separate opcodes.

Reason: given the current progress, they'll likely be deployed independently, and maybe the end result is not something that cleanly fits the current CLTV argument structure.

--001a11c349307f65830515e76dd8--