Bitcoin Forum
May 05, 2024, 07:56:00 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Checklocktimeverify  (Read 851 times)
bitcreditscc (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 501



View Profile
March 26, 2015, 09:50:28 PM
 #1

Just saw this, i think it's amazing. I'm wondering what it wasn't included in version 0.10.x?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...petertodd:checklocktimeverify

1714895760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714895760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714895760
Reply with quote  #2

1714895760
Report to moderator
1714895760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714895760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714895760
Reply with quote  #2

1714895760
Report to moderator
The forum was founded in 2009 by Satoshi and Sirius. It replaced a SourceForge forum.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714895760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714895760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714895760
Reply with quote  #2

1714895760
Report to moderator
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1129


View Profile
March 27, 2015, 12:39:50 AM
 #2

 What do you not see that you think should be there?

They incremented the version,
Moved nLockTime to another file,
Converted OP_NOP2 to OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY,
Added a nMaxNumSize parameter (with a default value) to CScriptNum,
and added a bunch of test cases to make sure that OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY does exactly what it's supposed to.

I don't see a problem with these changes.  Are you just thinking that something should have been done sooner?  

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the test cases not having been ready in time for v.0.10, but I don't actually know.  In any case, don't push for quicker feature inclusion in something that has security implications - you really want them to take the time to be absolutely sure it's right before they put it in there.

bitcreditscc (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 501



View Profile
March 27, 2015, 12:45:15 AM
 #3

What do you not see that you think should be there?

They incremented the version,
Moved nLockTime to another file,
Converted OP_NOP2 to OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY,
Added a parameter (with a default value) to CScriptNum,
and added a bunch of test cases to make sure that OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY does exactly what it's supposed to.

I don't see a problem with these changes.  Are you just thinking that something should have been done sooner? 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the test cases not having been ready in time for v.0.10, but I don't actually know.  In any case, don't push for quicker feature inclusion in something that has security implications - you really want them to take the time to be absolutely sure it's right before they put it in there.



Yeah, the code isn't in the main repo, that is what i am saying. I'll include it in mine and run some tests, maybe report back here.

Either way it's a great idea and will allow more to be possible. Do you know any other OPs that are on hold?

gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8382



View Profile WWW
March 27, 2015, 06:56:43 AM
 #4

Just saw this, i think it's amazing. I'm wondering what it wasn't included in version 0.10.x?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...petertodd:checklocktimeverify
Because it's not a finished proposal according to its author (and it was created too late for 0.10 in any case.)
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!