Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime

[Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev]

I extremely dislike the inversion to preserve the "previous nSequence
semantics". The "previous nSequence semantics" were
consensus-unenforceable but we can cover the same use cases (or the
realistic ones at least) with nMaturity. Let's face it and move on
without technical debt we don't need and may regret. If we do this
inversion we will likely carry it for very long if not forever.
As a side effect, I believe documentation can become much clearer
(maybe even shorter simultaneusly).
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev