[bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112)

Btc Drak btcdrak at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 10:30:52 UTC 2015

BIP68 introduces relative lock-time semantics to part of the nSequence
field leaving the majority of bits undefined for other future applications.

BIP112 introduces opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (OP_CSV) that is specifically
limited to verifying transaction inputs according to BIP68's relative
lock-time[1], yet the _name_ OP_CSV is much boarder than that. We spent
months limiting the number of bits used in BIP68 so they would be available
for future use cases, thus we have acknowledged there will be completely
different usecases that take advantage of unused nSequence bits.

For this reason I believe the BIP112 should be renamed specifically for
it's usecase, which is verifying the time/maturity of transaction inputs
relative to their inclusion in a block.



We could of course softfork additional meaning into OP_CSV each time we add
new sequence number usecases, but that would become obscure and confusing.
We have already shown there is no shortage of opcodes so it makes no sense
to cram everything into one generic opcode.

TL;DR: let's give BIP112 opcode a name that reflects it's actual usecase
rather than focusing on the bitcoin internals.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/a775f63a/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list