> OP_TRUE is the obvious way to do this, and it results with a 1 on the stack, which plays better with other standardness rules.
What other standardness rules? MINAMALIF? How does that interact with the proposal? On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:22 PM Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 01:36:24PM -0500, Greg Sanders wrote: > > Quickly checked, it fails a number of standardness tests in > unit/functional > > tests in Bitcoin Core, at least. > > > > OP_2 was actually Luke Jr's idea circa 2017 for about the same reasons, I > > just independently arrived at the same conclusion. > > Well, frankly I really don't like the idea of using OP_2 just to avoid > changing > some unit tests. We're doing something that many people will use for years > to > come, that's unnecessarily obscure just because we don't want to spend a > bit of > some modifying some tests to pass. > > OP_TRUE is the obvious way to do this, and it results with a 1 on the > stack, > which plays better with other standardness rules. OP_2 means we *also* may > need > to special case having a 2 on the stack in certain implementations of other > standardness rules. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
