AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

Merge rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#6671: units: reword docs from height to count in relative locktime

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Andrew Poelstra

100/100 · Strong
Merge rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#6671: units: reword docs from height to count in relative locktime

8867fe2e37f3fcd9e60a763c5e6911445ccdd13e units: reword docs to block count in relative locktime (satsfy (Renato Britto))

Pull request description:

This is a philosophical PR based on [this comment](https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/issues/3632#issuecomment-5160990873). It rewrites the remaining spots that mention relative locktime docs to say block count instead of block height, because a relative lock counts blocks elapsed since the UTXO was confirmed, it is not a chain height.

The goal is to make locktime usage crystal clear to the user. The wording choice regarding lock times is unfortunate.


ACKs for top commit:
apoelstra:
ACK 8867fe2e37f3fcd9e60a763c5e6911445ccdd13e; successfully ran local tests
tcharding:
ACK 8867fe2e37f3fcd9e60a763c5e6911445ccdd13e


Tree-SHA512: 8df559cedbf1ace4a368dd2631361d899294ca77d111dcf348d70e266617744ee370c41381a8120682144bd603d1c6da4acd17b27788cffd3d04d31a8ae91ef6
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only changes documentation comments and variable names in the rust-bitcoin library. It rewords references to 'block height' as 'block count' for relative locktime, because a relative locktime measures elapsed blocks since a coin was created, not an absolute position in the blockchain. No code behavior changed, so there is no security impact.

Recommended action

No action needed. This is a non-functional documentation clarification.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.