📅 Original date posted:2023-02-02
🗒️ Summary of this message: The use of OP_2 in Bitcoin Core fails standardness tests and is unnecessarily obscure; OP_TRUE is a better alternative.
📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 01:36:24PM -0500, Greg Sanders wrote:
> Quickly checked, it fails a number of standardness tests in unit/functional
> tests in Bitcoin Core, at least.
>
> OP_2 was actually Luke Jr's idea circa 2017 for about the same reasons, I
> just independently arrived at the same conclusion.
Well, frankly I really don't like the idea of using OP_2 just to avoid changing
some unit tests. We're doing something that many people will use for years to
come, that's unnecessarily obscure just because we don't want to spend a bit of
some modifying some tests to pass.
OP_TRUE is the obvious way to do this, and it results with a 1 on the stack,
which plays better with other standardness rules. OP_2 means we *also* may need
to special case having a 2 on the stack in certain implementations of other
standardness rules.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230202/e0de4880/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 23:19:17
in reply to nevent1q…qrst
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 23:19:17Event JSON
{
"id": "001373ca1b28f0f6658f4b239049e126d393a8b1aeeff2711174f3acf06d3a3c",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179957,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"143dbfe19a8d8d54226104036fa4a08fd39aa80019fe1af67513152c53af0150",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cef5059f619b1078f766ce2c9b92ff95319ff6c5db8fcdd8df26dbbf73e62c73",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"937f10fc4f78d8676348562d9d886843fbb351d99d6c96423fe9970819962e19"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-02-02\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The use of OP_2 in Bitcoin Core fails standardness tests and is unnecessarily obscure; OP_TRUE is a better alternative.\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 01:36:24PM -0500, Greg Sanders wrote:\n\u003e Quickly checked, it fails a number of standardness tests in unit/functional\n\u003e tests in Bitcoin Core, at least.\n\u003e \n\u003e OP_2 was actually Luke Jr's idea circa 2017 for about the same reasons, I\n\u003e just independently arrived at the same conclusion.\n\nWell, frankly I really don't like the idea of using OP_2 just to avoid changing\nsome unit tests. We're doing something that many people will use for years to\ncome, that's unnecessarily obscure just because we don't want to spend a bit of\nsome modifying some tests to pass.\n\nOP_TRUE is the obvious way to do this, and it results with a 1 on the stack,\nwhich plays better with other standardness rules. OP_2 means we *also* may need\nto special case having a 2 on the stack in certain implementations of other\nstandardness rules.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230202/e0de4880/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "166866e9c514fb79f0586bae5fca70d1a7b461a204a21e426b7f88f589f9b3ca9e6d13cdd42eeeb9cc6f8d7c6567ece2b007fd9698664440c60a3472ed449087"
}