As I said in an earlier post, a systems developer and an application
developer have very different perspectives on this. From the former's
perspective, it is entirely sensible to name things based on basic
features of the system's design (i.e. a field in the txin or tx that
gets checked) - but
Looks like I'm the long dissenting voice here? As the originator of the
name CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, perhaps I can explain why the name was
appropriately chosen and why the proposed alternatives don't stand up.
First, the names are purposefully chosen to illustrate what they do:
What does CHECKLOCKT
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3u1m36/why_arent_we_as_a_community_talking_about/cxbamhn?context=3
The following was originally posted to reddit; I was asked to repost it here:
In a system where everyone mostly trusts each other, sharding works great! You
just split up the blockchain th
The message could specify:
{ stib: 0x01,
TxnCount: (# of entries in the Indexes array)
Indexes: [{BLK: Block#,Txns:[TxIndex,TxIndex,...]},{BLK:
Block#,Txns:[...]}],
NewUTXO: (The script that will spend these coins)
}
*stib *is a Script Template Index Bitfield: Must (currently) be the byte
0x0
> Considering the website example, where most websites uses static
content, a bitcoin address could accumulate a dozen of transactions
before the webmaster changes the address to a new one.
Would this use case be a better match for something such as stealth
addresses or hierarchical deterministic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nice idea. I see it as an important feature because of several reasons:
Considering the website example, where most websites uses static
content, a bitcoin address could accumulate a dozen of transactions
before the webmaster changes the address to
