You can get the same effect with OP_CHECKBLOCKATHEIGHT as proposed by Luke
Dashjr (
if you also re-enable/extend certain opcodes like OP_AND and OP_LESSTHAN.
the ensuing thread.

Nathan Cook

On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 21:33, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev <> wrote:

> Difficulty change has profound impact on miner’s production thereby
> introduce the biggest risk while considering an investment.
> Commodity markets offer futures and options to hedge risks on traditional
> trading venues. Some might soon list difficulty futures.
> I think we could do much better than them natively within Bitcoin.
> A better solution could be a transaction that uses nLocktime denominated
> in block height, such that it is valid after the difficulty adjusted block
> in the future.
> A new OP_DIFFICULTY opcode would put onto stack the value of difficulty
> for the block the transaction is included into.
> The output script may then decide comparing that value with a strike which
> key can spend it.
> The input of the transaction would be a multi-sig escrow of those who
> entered the bet.
> The winner would broadcast.
> Once signed by both the transaction would not carry any counterparty risk
> and would not need an oracle to settle according to the bet.
> I plan to draft a BIP for this as I think this opcode would serve
> significant economic interest of Bitcoin economy, and is compatible with
> Bitcoin’s aim not to introduce 3rd party to do so.
> Do you see a fault in this proposal or want to contribute?
> Tamas Blummer
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to