Johnson Lau [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-12-17 📝 Original message:> On 16 Dec 2018, at 7:38 ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-12-17
📝 Original message:> On 16 Dec 2018, at 7:38 AM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:39 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 5. if there's exactly one, non-zero item on the stack; succeed
>
> Unless it is too much bikeshedding, I'd like to propose that to succeed the stack must be exactly empty. Script is more composable that way, removing the need for special logic to handle top-level CHECKSIG, vs mid-level CHECKSIGVERIFY.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

I proposed the same in BIP114. I wish Satoshi had designed that way. But I’m not sure if that would do more harm than good. For example, people might lose money by copying an existing script template. But they might also lose money in the same way as CHECKMULTISIG is disabled. So I’m not sure.

Another related thing I’d like to bikeshed is to pop the stack after OP_CLTV and OP_CSV. The same pros and cons apply.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181218/27c5b742/attachment.html>;