📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24
📝 Original message:
On 24 November 2015 1:30:19 pm AEST, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:05:46PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> With the segregated witness proposal, introducing new opcodes is
>easy,
>>> so maybe someone would find a reason to prefer open-coding it like
>this?
>>
>> I don't follow how segregated witness makes new opcodes any easier?
>
>I didn't either, and that's because it's slightly orthogonal.
>
>The proposal I heard is that the first byte of SW script is a version
>byte, and if you don't understand that version, the script succeeds.
Ah, I see - it doesn't make OP_CHECK*VERIFY any easier then, but adding ops that actually change the contents of the stack becomes a soft fork instead of a hard fork. Pretty neat. Don't think that's needed here though.
Cheers,
aj
--
Sent from my phone.
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-09 12:45:04
in reply to nevent1q…9xug
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-09 12:45:04Event JSON
{
"id": "02cfa706505205c7da8ad09eb8a87b0ebf1facec64558e3195285535c3a6ca0e",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686314704,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ebf410166f334c23aa8c4463788497d09c02fc7a472b5ea556de811c6970ae8b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cb103ae1ef61bd03b66d1acadb9a1c2843daba1ee9e8afe0c7c44cec733f0d95",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24\n📝 Original message:\nOn 24 November 2015 1:30:19 pm AEST, Rusty Russell \u003crusty at rustcorp.com.au\u003e wrote:\n\u003eAnthony Towns \u003caj at erisian.com.au\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:05:46PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e With the segregated witness proposal, introducing new opcodes is\n\u003eeasy,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e so maybe someone would find a reason to prefer open-coding it like\n\u003ethis?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I don't follow how segregated witness makes new opcodes any easier?\n\u003e\n\u003eI didn't either, and that's because it's slightly orthogonal.\n\u003e\n\u003eThe proposal I heard is that the first byte of SW script is a version\n\u003ebyte, and if you don't understand that version, the script succeeds.\n\nAh, I see - it doesn't make OP_CHECK*VERIFY any easier then, but adding ops that actually change the contents of the stack becomes a soft fork instead of a hard fork. Pretty neat. Don't think that's needed here though.\n\nCheers,\naj\n\n\n-- \nSent from my phone.",
"sig": "9e5f6a2a3588f302bc50a996b5911ad33ea254e7d8e74d34d1c1036e87d011d2b01f9591fa70b7f4449ab3c4774c13b4b42b5c02383c26a1b363fed25bff5603"
}