On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 05:27:54AM -0800, Weikeng Chen wrote: > When I am implementing fraud proofs in Bitcoin script, I find it useful to > have an opcode "OP_SUCCESS" that will mark the execution to be successful > without running the rest of the script, if this opcode is being executed. > This is useful for writing code for fraud proofs such as BitVM, where the > verifier wins if it finds one mismatch, and the verifier does not need to > show the other mismatches. > > This OP_SUCCESS is weaker version of the OP_SUCCESSx in the Taproot > upgrade, which marks the execution as successful for the mere presence of > OP_SUCCESSx anywhere in the script. Rusty Russell in a 2023 article, > "Covenants: Examining ScriptPubkeys in Bitcoin Script", also mentioned > about the usefulness of such an opcode. > > Of course, this opcode can be emulated, and one can rewrite the existing > script in a way to realize the same functionality without adding a new > opcode to Bitcoin. > > The problem is that such rewriting is indeed fairly complicated. For > example, say that we have the following program. > > <snip>
I raised the question on IRC about why the existing SUCCESSx codes work the way they do, and got several good anwsers that you can read here https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2024-12-09.log In short, for purpose of softforking upgrade mechanism, the existing SUCCESS codes give us way more freedom of action. But it sounds like you want a "weak SUCCESS" opcode in order to use the success semantics, not as an upgrade mechanism. Maybe it makes sense to propose that one of the existing OP_SUCCESSx opcodes should be softforked to become OP_WEAK_SUCCESS? -- Andrew Poelstra Director, Blockstream Research Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew The sun is always shining in space -Justin Lewis-Webster -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/Z1dAQ8pSIqn8XA56%40camus.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
