Jeremy [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-07-06 📝 Original message:I don't think Elements ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-07-06
📝 Original message:I don't think Elements engineering decisions or management timelines should
have any bearing on what Bitcoin adopts, beyond learning what
works/doesn't. Same as litecoin, dogecoin, or bitcoin cash :)

With my understanding of elements it makes sense that you wouldn't want to
break compatibility script version to script version, although that seems
inevitable that you will need to either hard fork or break compatibility if
you want to fix the CHECKSIGFROMSTACK has verify semantics bug. But perhaps
that's a smaller change than the # of stack elements popped? It makes sense
having CAT that adding a split CSFS wouldn't be a priority. However, I'd
suggest that as far as elements is concerned, if the bitcoin community
decides on something that is incompatible, elements can use up some
addition opcodes or a keytype to add CSFS_BITCOIN_COMPAT ops.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210706/8660390f/attachment-0001.html>;