[bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime
mark at friedenbach.org
Wed Aug 19 16:21:36 UTC 2015
I am indifferent on this issue (the bit inversion), but so far only Jorge
has spoken up. I opted for this detail during implementation in order to
preserve existing semantics, even if those semantics are not commonly used.
This was the conservative choice, driven in part because I didn't want the
proposal to be held up by the other side saying "this is confusing because
it changes how sequence numbers work! it used to count up but now it counts
I can see both sides and as I said I'm indifferent, so I went with the
conservative choice of not messing with existing semantics. However if
there is strong preferences from _multiple_ people on this matter it is not
too late to change. If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Please note there is now a PR for this BIP and also a pull request for
> > the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core.
> >  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179
> >  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev