Richard Moore [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-11-27 📝 Original message:Heya, I was wondering ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-11-27
📝 Original message:Heya,

I was wondering about BIP 65 regarding the OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, and thought it might make more sense to instead have a OP_CHECKLOCKTIME which would simply push an OP_TRUE or OP_FALSE onto the stack?

That way someone could include multiple OP_CHECKLOCKTIME conditions in a single script. It is trivial to always emulate OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY by using a OP_CHECKLOCKTIME OP_VERIFY sequence.


As a second question, would it possibly make more sense to, rather than relying on the nLockTime in a transaction, allow an opcode that would use similar semantics, but against an item in the stack? Then you could essentially include multiple nLockTimes in a single script and make arbitrarily interesting (complicated?) scripts based on block height and/or block timestamp.

The OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can still be easily implemented, by using

nLockTimeThatWouldBeInTx OP_CHECKLOCKTIME OP_VERIFY


Just something that came to mind while reading about OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

Thanks,

RicMoo

.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>

Richard Moore ~ Founder
Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
phone: (778) 882-6125
email: ricmoo at geneticmistakes.com <mailto:ricmoo at geneticmistakes.com>
www: http://GeneticMistakes.com <http://geneticmistakes.com/>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141127/be90f9d6/attachment.html>;