Author: Matt Corallo 2015-11-26 22:23:38
Published on: 2015-11-26T22:23:38+00:00
The discussion in the bitcoin-dev mailing list revolves around the naming of the opcode for BIP112, which verifies the time/maturity of transaction inputs relative to their inclusion in a block. The original name suggested was CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (CSV), but some members propose that it should be renamed to reflect its actual use case rather than focusing on the bitcoin internals. Eric Lombrozo argues that app developers need a clear interface to develop apps and that relative timelock is the critical exposed functionality intended here. He suggests calling the opcode RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY to communicate fairly directly to developers and protocol designers the semantics they actually care about and also make clear the relationship between absolute and relative timelock. Mark Friedenbach, who originated the name CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, explains that the names are purposefully chosen to illustrate what they do and that the semantics are not limited to relative lock-time/maturity only. He also mentions that single-byte opcode space is limited and that there are less than 10 such opcodes left. However, he concedes that if nSequence were renamed, his objection would relax. He thinks that the indirect naming of CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY is due to its indirect behavior and that the nSequence name is better. Nonetheless, many members agree with Eric Lombrozo that the opcode should be renamed to reflect its actual use case. Suggestions include CHECKMATURITYVERIFY, RELATIVELOCKTIMEVERIFY, RCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, and RCLTV.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T22:25:14.062399+00:00