Author: Eric Lombrozo 2015-11-26 21:32:58
Published on: 2015-11-26T21:32:58+00:00
The discussion is about the naming convention of an opcode related to timelock functionality in the Bitcoin system. Eric Lombrozo suggests that the naming convention should be CHECKVERIFY, and the full opcode name should be CHECKRELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY, but it is too long and should be abbreviated. He also thinks that timelock is more relevant from an application developer standpoint than maturity because it controls when funds can be moved. Eric believes that RCLTV or RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is a better choice for abbreviation as we already have CLTV, which makes the relationship between the two more explicit. He further adds about the possibility of adding opcodes with segregated witness that push values onto the stack. Jorge Timón also agrees with Eric's suggestion and proposes CMV instead of the check_x_verify naming pattern.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T01:21:59.714328+00:00