Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-03-09 🗒️ Summary of this message: The email ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-03-09
🗒️ Summary of this message: The email discusses the use of OP_FORWARD_SELF as a JET of OP_FLU in the revaulting common case, with a suggestion to use a special case instead.
📝 Original message:On 10 March 2023 4:45:15 am AEST, Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>1) OP_FORWARD_SELF is a JET of OP_FLU in the revaulting common case. Maybe
>obvious but I missed this initially and thought it was useful to be pointed
>out.
That was true for TLUV - iirc "FALSE FALSE 0 TLUV" would preserve the spk - but I don't think it's true for OP_FLU: you can't commit to preserving the current script without a way to observe the current script; trying to include a copy of the script in the script makes the script size infinite, and trying to include a hash of the script inside the script is cryptographically infeasible.
You could just special case "0 0 OP_FLU" to result in the same script rather than an empty one though, which would avoid the need for a dedicated FWD_SELF opcode.
(Not convinced calling things Jets when they're unrelated to simplicity makes sense)
Cheers,
aj
--
Sent from my phone.
🗒️ Summary of this message: The email discusses the use of OP_FORWARD_SELF as a JET of OP_FLU in the revaulting common case, with a suggestion to use a special case instead.
📝 Original message:On 10 March 2023 4:45:15 am AEST, Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>1) OP_FORWARD_SELF is a JET of OP_FLU in the revaulting common case. Maybe
>obvious but I missed this initially and thought it was useful to be pointed
>out.
That was true for TLUV - iirc "FALSE FALSE 0 TLUV" would preserve the spk - but I don't think it's true for OP_FLU: you can't commit to preserving the current script without a way to observe the current script; trying to include a copy of the script in the script makes the script size infinite, and trying to include a hash of the script inside the script is cryptographically infeasible.
You could just special case "0 0 OP_FLU" to result in the same script rather than an empty one though, which would avoid the need for a dedicated FWD_SELF opcode.
(Not convinced calling things Jets when they're unrelated to simplicity makes sense)
Cheers,
aj
--
Sent from my phone.