Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-03-16 📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2022-03-16
📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:47 PM Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:

>
> To redo the singleton pattern in bitcoin's context, I think you'd have
> to pass in both the full tx you're spending (to be able to get the
> txid of its parent) and the full tx of its parent (to be able to get
> the scriptPubKey that your utxo spent) which seems klunky but at least
> possible (you'd be able to drop the witness data at least; without that
> every tx would be including the entire history of the singleton).
>

Yes that's the idea. Since the parent transaction is in the blockchain it
could be pulled in automatically without having to charge vbytes for it.


> If softfork is just doing a best effort for whatever opcodes it knows
> about, and otherwise succeeding, then it has to succeed, and your
> script/output has become anyone-can-spend.
>

That can be alleviated by when things call untrusted code they can wrap it
in a guard which can be the soft fork opcode itself.


>
> On the other hand, if you could tell the softfork op that you only wanted
> ops up-to-and-including the 118 softfork, then it could reject fakeopcode
> and fail the script, which I think gives the desirable behaviour.
>

A simple approach to versioning like that may be more expedient. Soft
forking in CLVM isn't implemented yet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220315/ccdf755f/attachment.html>;