On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:05:47AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> writes: > > That said, if people have strong feelings about this, I would be willing > > to make OP_CLTV work as follows: > > > > <nLockTime> 1 OP_CLTV > > > > Where the 1 selects absolute mode, and all others act as OP_NOP's. A > > future relative CLTV could then be a future soft-fork implemented as > > follows: > > > > <relative nLockTime> 2 OP_CLTV > > Mildly prefer to put that the other way around. > > ie. the OP_NOP1 becomes OP_EXTENSION_PREFIX, the next op defines which > extended opcode it is (must be a push).
There's no good way to implement that option - when the OP_NOPx is executed all that's available to it without a lot of complex work is what's already been pushed to the stack, not what will be pushed to the stack in the future. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000002761482983864328320badf24d137101fab9a5861a59d30
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
