Add constant definitions for clarity

Formatting Fix typos

Update with BIP 112 assignment

Update references to BIP113

Update deployment methodology

Add references

1 files changed, 246 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/bip-0112.mediawiki b/bip-0112.mediawiki
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c06caf5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bip-0112.mediawiki
@@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
+<pre>
+  BIP: 112
+  Title: CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
+  Authors: BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
+           Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>	
+  Status: Draft
+  Type: Standards Track
+  Created: 2015-08-10
+</pre>
+
+==Abstract==
+
+This BIP describes a new opcode (CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY) for the Bitcoin
+scripting system that in combination with BIP 68 allows execution
+pathways of a script to be restricted based on the age of the output
+being spent.
+
+
+==Summary==
+
+CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY redefines the existing NOP3 opcode. When executed
+it compares the top item on the stack to the inverse of the nSequence
+field of the transaction input containing the scriptSig. If the
+inverse of nSequence is less than the sequence threshold (1 << 31),
+the transaction version is greater than or equal to 2, and the top
+item on the stack is less than or equal to the inverted nSequence,
+script evaluation continues as though a NOP was executed. Otherwise
+the script fails immediately.
+
+BIP 68's redefinition of nSequence prevents a non-final transaction
+from being selected for inclusion in a block until the corresponding
+input has reached the specified age, as measured in block height or
+block time. By comparing the argument to CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY against
+the nSequence field, we indirectly verify a desired minimum age of the
+the output being spent; until that relative age has been reached any
+script execution pathway including the CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY will fail
+to validate, causing the transaction not to be selected for inclusion
+in a block.
+
+
+==Motivation==
+
+BIP 68 repurposes the transaction nSequence field meaning by giving
+sequence numbers new consensus-enforced semantics as a relative
+lock-time. However, there is no way to build Bitcoin scripts to make
+decisions based on this field.
+
+By making the nSequence field accessible to script, it becomes
+possible to construct code pathways that only become accessible some
+minimum time after proof-of-publication. This enables a wide variety
+of applications in phased protocols such as escrow, payment channels,
+or bidirectional pegs.
+
+
+==Specification==
+
+Refer to the reference implementation, reproduced below, for the precise 
+semantics and detailed rationale for those semantics.
+
+    
+    // Threshold for nLockTime: below this value it is interpreted as block number,
+    // otherwise as UNIX timestamp (already defined in Bitcoin Core).
+    static const unsigned int LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD = 500000000; // Tue Nov  5 00:53:20 1985 UTC
+    
+    // Threshold for inverted nSequence: below this value it is interpreted
+    // as a relative lock-time, otherwise ignored.
+    static const uint32_t SEQUENCE_THRESHOLD = (1 << 31);
+    
+    case OP_NOP3:
+    {
+        if (!(flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY)) {
+            // not enabled; treat as a NOP3
+            if (flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_NOPS) {
+                return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_NOPS);
+            }
+            break;
+        }
+        
+        if (stack.size() < 1)
+            return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_INVALID_STACK_OPERATION);
+        
+        // Note that unlike CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY we do not need to
+        // accept 5-byte bignums since any value greater than or
+        // equal to SEQUENCE_THRESHOLD (= 1 << 31) will be rejected
+        // anyway. This limitation just happens to coincide with
+        // CScriptNum's default 4-byte limit with an explicit sign
+        // bit.
+        //
+        // This means there is a maximum relative lock time of 52
+        // years, even though the nSequence field in transactions
+        // themselves is uint32_t and could allow a relative lock
+        // time of up to 120 years.
+        const CScriptNum nInvSequence(stacktop(-1), fRequireMinimal);
+        
+        // In the rare event that the argument may be < 0 due to
+        // some arithmetic being done first, you can always use
+        // 0 MAX CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY.
+        if (nInvSequence < 0)
+            return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_NEGATIVE_LOCKTIME);
+        
+        // Actually compare the specified inverse sequence number
+        // with the input.
+        if (!CheckSequence(nInvSequence))
+            return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_UNSATISFIED_LOCKTIME);
+        
+        break;
+    }
+    
+    bool CheckSequence(const CScriptNum& nInvSequence) const
+    {
+        int64_t txToInvSequence;
+        
+        // Fail under all circumstances if the transaction's version
+        // number is not set high enough to enable enforced sequence
+        // number rules.
+        if (txTo->nVersion < 2)
+            return false;
+        
+        // Sequence number must be inverted to convert it into a
+        // relative lock-time.
+        txToInvSequence = (int64_t)~txTo->vin[nIn].nSequence;
+        
+        // Sequence numbers under SEQUENCE_THRESHOLD are not consensus
+        // constrained.
+        if (txToInvSequence >= SEQUENCE_THRESHOLD)
+            return false;
+        
+        // There are two types of relative lock-time: lock-by-
+        // blockheight and lock-by-blocktime, distinguished by
+        // whether txToInvSequence < LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD.
+        //
+        // We want to compare apples to apples, so fail the script
+        // unless the type of lock-time being tested is the same as
+        // the lock-time in the transaction input.
+        if (!(
+            (txToInvSequence <  LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD && nInvSequence <  LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD) ||
+            (txToInvSequence >= LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD && nInvSequence >= LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD)
+        ))
+            return false;
+        
+        // Now that we know we're comparing apples-to-apples, the
+        // comparison is a simple numeric one.
+        if (nInvSequence > txToInvSequence)
+            return false;
+        
+        return true;
+    }
+
+https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/commit/33be476a60fcc2afbe6be0ca7b93a84209173eb2
+
+
+==Example: Escrow with Timeout==
+
+An escrow that times out automatically 30 days after being funded can be
+established in the following way. Alice, Bob and Escrow create a 2-of-3
+address with the following redeemscript.
+
+    IF
+        2 <Alice's pubkey> <Bob's pubkey> <Escrow's pubkey> 3 CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
+    ELSE
+        <LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD + 30*24*60*60> CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP
+        <Alice's pubkey> CHECKSIGVERIFY
+    ENDIF
+
+At any time funds can be spent using signatures from any two of Alice, 
+Bob or the Escrow.
+
+After 30 days Alice can sign alone.
+
+The clock does not start ticking until the payment to the escrow address
+confirms. 
+
+
+==Reference Implementation==
+
+A reference implementation is provided in the following git repository:
+
+https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/checksequenceverify
+
+
+==Deployment==
+
+We reuse the double-threshold switchover mechanism from BIPs 34 and
+66, with the same thresholds, but for nVersion = 8. The new rules are
+in effect for every block (at height H) with nVersion = 8 and at least
+750 out of 1000 blocks preceding it (with heights H-1000..H-1) also
+have nVersion = 8. Furthermore, when 950 out of the 1000 blocks
+preceding a block do have nVersion = 8, nVersion = 3 blocks become
+invalid, and all further blocks enforce the new rules.
+
+When assessing the block version as mask of ~0x20000007 must be applied
+to work around the complications caused by
+[http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010396.html BIP101's premature use]
+of the [https://gist.github.com/sipa/bf69659f43e763540550 undecided version bits proposal].
+
+By applying ~0x20000007 with nVersion = 8, the thresholds should be tested
+comparing block nVersion >= 4 as this will save a bit for future use.
+
+It is recommended that this soft-fork deployment trigger include other 
+related proposals for improving Bitcoin's lock-time capabilities, including:
+
+[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki BIP 65]: 
+OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, 
+
+[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0068.mediawiki BIP 68]: 
+Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signalled via sequence numbers,
+
+and [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0113.mediawiki BIP 113]: 
+Median-Past-Time-Lock.
+
+==Credits==
+
+Mark Friedenbach invented the application of sequence numbers to
+achieve relative lock-time, and wrote the reference implementation of
+CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY.
+
+The reference implementation and this BIP was based heavily on work
+done by Peter Todd for the closely related BIP 65.
+
+BtcDrak authored this BIP document.
+
+
+==References==
+
+BIP 68: Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signalled via
+sequence numbers
+https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0068.mediawiki
+
+BIP 65: OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
+https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki
+
+BIP 113: Median past block time for time-lock constraints
+https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0113.mediawiki
+
+HTLCs using OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY/OP_LOCKTIMEVERIFY and
+revocation hashes
+http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-July/000021.html
+
+[http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010396.html Softfork deployment considerations]
+
+[https://gist.github.com/sipa/bf69659f43e763540550 Version bits]
+
+
+==Copyright==
+
+This document is placed in the public domain.