Seems ... acceptable from first glance.
Though I propose an ammendent to either
(1)
make the script: OP_NOP1 HASH160 push-20-byte-hash EQUAL to make it
extremely easy to see from the first byte that this is verly likely to be
a special transaction (or more accurately if the first byte isn't
+1. I love this proposal.
It's two less bytes than OP_EVAL even.
It allows static analysis.
It doesn't require any change to the script interpreter. (You can do a
static replacement step between parsing and execution.)
It allows all urgent use cases.
It doesn't consume a NOP. If we ever want
Wouldn't it work to restrict the number of executions of OP_EVAL allowed
per transaction? That way it wouldn't allow for unlimited looping. If
there's too many OP_EVAL executions during the transaction evaluation,
just consider the transaction illegal. 3 would be enough for the
purposes people
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alternative to OP_EVAL
To: rocon...@theorem.ca
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 4:54 AM
Wouldn't it work to restrict the
number of executions of OP_EVAL allowed
per transaction? That way it wouldn't
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
Basically OP_DUP lets you duplicate the code on the stack and that is the
key to looping. I'm pretty sure from here we get get Turing completeness.
Using the stack operations I expect you can implement the SK-calculus
given an
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Chris Double wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
Basically OP_DUP lets you duplicate the code on the stack and that is the
key to looping. I'm pretty sure from here we get get Turing completeness.
Using the stack operations I expect you can
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:08:38PM +0100, Pieter Wuille wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 01:55:03AM -0500, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
Gavin asked me to come up with an alternative to OP_EVAL, so here is my
proposal.
OP_CODEHASH Initial Proposal
If we're again brainstorming about
I haven't been much a part of these brainstorming discussions, and so I'm
really looking at this from a bird's eye view, without any bias towards any
particular idea.
I do see what appears to be relevant concerns, brought up just before new,
powerful functionality is injected into 50%+ of the
8 matches
Mail list logo
