Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-11-03 📝 Original message:Right. There are minor ...

📅 Original date posted:2016-11-03
📝 Original message:Right. There are minor trade-offs to be made with regards to that design
point of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Fortunately this covenant
construction isn't sensitive to that choice and can be made to work with
either implementation of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Johnson Lau <jl2012 at xbt.hk> wrote:

> Interesting. I have implemented OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in a different
> way from the Elements. Instead of hashing the data on stack, I directly put
> the 32 byte hash to the stack. This should be more flexible as not every
> system are using double-SHA256
>
> https://github.com/jl2012/bitcoin/commits/mast_v3_master
>
>
> On 3 Nov 2016, at 01:30, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is possible to implement covenants using two script extensions: OP_CAT
> and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Both of these op codes are already
> available in the Elements Alpha sidechain, so it is possible to construct
> covenants in Elements Alpha today. I have detailed how the construction
> works in a blog post at <https://blockstream.com/2016/
> 11/02/covenants-in-elements-alpha.html>. As an example, I've constructed
> scripts for the Moeser-Eyal-Sirer vault.
>
> I'm interested in collecting and implementing other useful covenants, so
> if people have ideas, please post them.
>
> If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
>
> --
> Russell O'Connor
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161103/8e963659/attachment.html>;