Altstack in v0 P2WSH should be left untouched. If anyone is already using
altstack, BIP117 would very likely confiscate those UTXOs because the altstack
would unlikely be executable.
Even in v1 witness, I think altstack should remain be a temporary data storage.
The “(many scripts) concatinated
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2018 1:06:14 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > The rule AFAICT is "standard transactions must still work". This was
> > violated with low-S, but the transformation was arguably trivial.
> >
> > OTOH, use of al
On Tuesday 16 January 2018 1:06:14 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> "Russell O'Connor" writes:
> > However, if I understand correctly, the situation for BIP 117 is entirely
> > different. As far as I understand there is currently no restrictions
> > about terminating a v0 witness program
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The rule AFAICT is "standard transactions must still work". This was
> violated with low-S, but the transformation was arguably trivial.
That is my view, generally. Like any other principle, its
applicability is modulated b
"Russell O'Connor" writes:
> However, if I understand correctly, the situation for BIP 117 is entirely
> different. As far as I understand there is currently no restrictions about
> terminating a v0 witness program with a non-empty alt-stack, and there are
> no restrictions on leaving non-canonic
Putting aside for the moment the concerns that Pieter and Rusty have raised
about BIP 117 (concerns which I agree with), is BIP 117 even a viable soft
fork to begin with?
When it comes to soft forks of Script, in the past there have been two
kinds.
The first kind is soft-forking new script semant
I havent the hubris to suggest that we know exactly what a templated MAST
*should* look like. It's not used in production anywhere. Even if we did have
the foresight, the tail-call semantics allow for other constructions besides
MAST and for the sake of the future we should allow such permission
On Jan 9, 2018 13:41, "Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
The use of the alt stack is a hack for segwit script version 0 which has
the clean stack rule. Anticipated future improvements here are to switch to
a witness script version, and a new segwit o
The use of the alt stack is a hack for segwit script version 0 which has the
clean stack rule. Anticipated future improvements here are to switch to a
witness script version, and a new segwit output version which supports native
MAST to save an additional 40 or so witness bytes. Either approach
I've just re-read BIP 117, and I'm concerned about its flexibility. It
seems to be doing too much.
The use of altstack is awkward, and makes me query this entire approach.
I understand that CLEANSTACK painted us into a corner here :(
The simplest implementation of tail recursion would be a singl
10 matches
Mail list logo
