After a little more though (and some comments from aj), I realize that the
opcode naming convention is actually CHECK VERIFY.
Therefore, the full opcode name should be CHECKRELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY.
However, this name is ridiculously long, so at least some part will require
abbreviation.
In typ
Actually, with this argument I think CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY is more appropriate.
To an app developer, you're enforcing maturity by enforcing sequence. I think
it's much more clear to app devs to say sequence here since it makes explicit
how to create the transaction which passes the check, whereas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> After a little more though (and some comments from aj), I realize that the
> opcode naming convention is actually CHECK VERIFY.
>
> Therefore, the full opcode name should be CHECKRELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY.
>
> However
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 lo
I was curious about there being only 10 single-byte opcodes left. There
are ten single-byte OP_NOPx opcodes defined, but there are 15 opcodes that
"simply *do not exist anymore* in the protocol" because they are scary (had
bugs that "could crash any Bitcoin node if exploited" or "allowed anyone to
