📅 Original date posted:2023-08-07
🗒️ Summary of this message: The sender apologizes for confusion and inconsistent use of plurals. They explain that the opcode is now functionally complete and ready for experimentation.
📝 Original message:
Hi Dave,
I apologize for the confusion and the inconsistent use of plurals.
The reason I called it a "complete proposal" is that the opcode is
now functionally complete, unlike the previous attempt where the
approach for the output amount introspection was not yet specified.
The semantics are informally defined in the previous e-mail, and
implemented in the code [1], which is the only formal specification
at this time. I believe the code is now fairly stable and ready to
experiment with.
My own and (hopefully) others' experimentation will help in writing
a more informed BIP proposal in the next few months.
About the plurals: OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY is indeed now a single
opcode that is useful on its own, but I will also be maintaining a
separate branch [2] that contains both OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY and
OP_CAT, which enables the full generality of the MATT proposal.
Best,
Salvatore
[1] -
https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/compare/24.0...Merkleize:bitcoin:checkcontractverify
[2] - https://github.com/Merkleize/bitcoin/tree/matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230807/1d9c4af8/attachment-0001.html>;
Salvatore Ingala [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lp…c74n4
2023-08-08 14:20:52
in reply to nevent1q…gc8v
Author Public Key
npub1lpkmxpl2zhk0w30vtdz7s64ml9644k785eggmjsjgs7wman3szzqac74n4Published at
2023-08-08 14:20:52Event JSON
{
"id": "5e9bc8be6879ec0557fc92443bc1c01025c837bb2a1fb5f568cf21ce0e1f237b",
"pubkey": "f86db307ea15ecf745ec5b45e86abbf9755adbc7a6508dca12443cedf6718084",
"created_at": 1691504452,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"86649676ae3ff05a6e718ccf3b301e4e0e000c38b8f97ecfab084b85db23c5a3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"21433ba5c03d2078e57e186dbe80c2eabdd2c2919d020a088b006a9a4e377ae8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-08-07\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The sender apologizes for confusion and inconsistent use of plurals. They explain that the opcode is now functionally complete and ready for experimentation.\n📝 Original message:\nHi Dave,\n\nI apologize for the confusion and the inconsistent use of plurals.\nThe reason I called it a \"complete proposal\" is that the opcode is\nnow functionally complete, unlike the previous attempt where the\napproach for the output amount introspection was not yet specified.\n\nThe semantics are informally defined in the previous e-mail, and\nimplemented in the code [1], which is the only formal specification\nat this time. I believe the code is now fairly stable and ready to\nexperiment with.\nMy own and (hopefully) others' experimentation will help in writing\na more informed BIP proposal in the next few months.\n\nAbout the plurals: OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY is indeed now a single\nopcode that is useful on its own, but I will also be maintaining a\nseparate branch [2] that contains both OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY and\nOP_CAT, which enables the full generality of the MATT proposal.\n\nBest,\nSalvatore\n\n[1] -\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/compare/24.0...Merkleize:bitcoin:checkcontractverify\n[2] - https://github.com/Merkleize/bitcoin/tree/matt\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230807/1d9c4af8/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "7823c0ab7eb5ca7f6fc8ac12011481b1f46c6f3e416067059ad4a4daddf2aaae18f6a7a3ffcc1d88ddb74a37c4a96cd31d5f339d810bc56e66d263f7df02d32d"
}