Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 65 and OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY inquiry...

2014-11-28 Thread Flavien Charlon
This breaks existing invariants and would make the coins potentially less fungible because they wouldn't be reorg safe. I'm not sure coins are ever reorg safe. All it takes is a double spend in the history of your coins for them to become invalid after a reorg. Because of that, there are already

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 65 and OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY inquiry...

2014-11-28 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: This breaks existing invariants and would make the coins potentially less fungible because they wouldn't be reorg safe. I'm not sure coins are ever reorg safe. All it takes is a double spend in the history

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 65 and OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY inquiry...

2014-11-27 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Richard Moore m...@ricmoo.com wrote: 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? Updating the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 65 and OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY inquiry...

2014-11-27 Thread Peter Todd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 27 November 2014 18:46:23 GMT-05:00, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: snip 100% accurate commentary from gmaxwell The things you're suggesting were all carefully designed out of the proposal, perhaps the BIP text needs some more