On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 01:28:38AM +, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 02:03:15AM +0200, Peter Todd wrote:
> > On February 18, 2023 1:35:34 AM GMT+02:00, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev
> > >You could try statically analyze `` to determine whether the
> > >IF branch could ever
Hi vjudeu,
Before I respond to your email, I would like to share the [python script][0]
that could be used to do 3 things:
1) List peers
2) Broadcast a transaction to peers and see if it was relayed
3) Ban peers that did not relay your transaction
The primary goal of this script is testing
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 5:11 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Also, it gives us a hint, that if any Script upgrade will be considered in
> the future, we can think about doing it in a way, where unused parts can be
> pruned, without invalidating
> By standardness rules (where you can have up to 80-byte pushes), a little
> over 1%. By consensus (520-byte pushes) less than 0.2%.
Note that instead of "OP_DROP OP_DROP", people can use "OP_2DROP", so the
number of dropping opcodes could be halved.
> I mean, they'd provide the `FALSE` as a
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 02:03:15AM +0200, Peter Todd wrote:
> On February 18, 2023 1:35:34 AM GMT+02:00, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev
> >You could try statically analyze `` to determine whether the
> >IF branch could ever be taken. For example there is no path through
> >the "inscription
On February 18, 2023 1:35:34 AM GMT+02:00, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev
>You could try statically analyze `` to determine whether the
>IF branch could ever be taken. For example there is no path through
>the "inscription script" that would result in all the crap being dropped
>by the end of
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:35:34PM +, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> If you ban any of these specific script fragments then spammers will
> just use `IF ENDIF` and provide the `FALSE` as a zero push.
> And banning *this* would ban legitimate use cases.
>
I realize this is
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 03:56:31PM +0100, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > [0]: https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/4c022839584020444915c84bdd825831
>
> I wonder how far should that rule go: SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_NOPS.
> Because "OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_ENDIF" is effectively the same as
>
> [0]: https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/4c022839584020444915c84bdd825831
I wonder how far should that rule go: SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_NOPS.
Because "OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_ENDIF" is effectively the same as
"OP_NOP", and putting NOPs in many places is considered non-standard. The same
is
Hi Bitcoin Developers,
There is a famous quote attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her biography of
Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it." I'm curious to know how many Bitcoin developers share this
sentiment.
Recently there was a lot
10 matches
Mail list logo
