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: ric...@geneticmistakes.com <mailto:ric...@geneticmistakes.com>
www: http://GeneticMistakes.com <http://geneticmistakes.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
