Author: Eric Lombrozo 2015-11-25 23:41:03
Published on: 2015-11-25T23:41:03+00:00
The debate over the naming of opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (OP_CSV) in BIP112 continues. While the name was purposefully chosen to illustrate its function, some argue that it is too broad and limits the use of nSequence bits for future applications. Suggestions have been made to rename it to reflect its actual use case of verifying the time/maturity of transaction inputs relative to their inclusion in a block. The proposed names include CHECKMATURITYVERIFY, RELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY, RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, and RCLTV. The argument for renaming it is that it will simplify the process for app developers and help to gain greater acceptance and adoption. However, those in opposition argue that the semantics are not limited to relative lock-time/maturity only and that single-byte opcode space is limited. Ultimately, the decision will be up to the Bitcoin community to decide which name better reflects the intent and use case of the opcode.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T01:21:31.396987+00:00