theymos [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-12-29 🗒️ Summary of this message: OP_EVAL ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-12-29
🗒️ Summary of this message: OP_EVAL proposal makes script language Turing complete with a limit on recursion depth, but all operations still need to be explicitly specified. OP_CODEHASH eliminates the need for script ops to be in strings.
📝 Original message:On Thu, Dec 29, 2011, at 01:55 AM, roconnor at theorem.ca wrote:
> The number of operations executed is still bounded by the number of
> operations occurring in the script. With the OP_EVAL proposal the
> script language becomes essentially Turing complete, with only an
> artificial limit on recursion depth preventing arbitrary computation
> and there is no way to know what code will run without executing it.
Even if OP_EVAL allowed infinite depth, you'd still need to explicitly
specify all operations performed, since there is no way of looping.
I think that something like OP_EVAL will eventually be used to improve
Script in a backward-compatible way (enable the disabled math ops, fix
bugs, etc.), so the mechanism might as well be used now. The only
advantage I see with OP_CODEHASH is that script ops won't need to be in
Script "strings".
🗒️ Summary of this message: OP_EVAL proposal makes script language Turing complete with a limit on recursion depth, but all operations still need to be explicitly specified. OP_CODEHASH eliminates the need for script ops to be in strings.
📝 Original message:On Thu, Dec 29, 2011, at 01:55 AM, roconnor at theorem.ca wrote:
> The number of operations executed is still bounded by the number of
> operations occurring in the script. With the OP_EVAL proposal the
> script language becomes essentially Turing complete, with only an
> artificial limit on recursion depth preventing arbitrary computation
> and there is no way to know what code will run without executing it.
Even if OP_EVAL allowed infinite depth, you'd still need to explicitly
specify all operations performed, since there is no way of looping.
I think that something like OP_EVAL will eventually be used to improve
Script in a backward-compatible way (enable the disabled math ops, fix
bugs, etc.), so the mechanism might as well be used now. The only
advantage I see with OP_CODEHASH is that script ops won't need to be in
Script "strings".