MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Billy <fresheneesz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:50:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDYYYYEeuQVL6d97_OwN_f8ektdqv-5zXVT9fEqiS6qtoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025dfb9059ced1bc8"
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] op_checktemplateverify and number of inputs
Precedence: list

--00000000000025dfb9059ced1bc8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I have a question about op_ctv related to the requirement to specify the
number of inputs. I don't quite see why its necessary, but most
importantly, I don't see why we want to *require* the user of the op to
specify the number of inputs, tho I see the reasoning why one would want to
specify it. If the op allowed both cases (specifying a number of inputs and
allowing any number), it seems like the best of both worlds. I started a
discussion on bitcointalk.org:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220520

--00000000000025dfb9059ced1bc8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I have a question about op_ctv related to the require=
ment to specify the number of inputs. I don&#39;t quite see why its necessa=
ry, but most importantly, I don&#39;t see why we want to *require* the user=
 of the op to specify the number of inputs, tho I see the reasoning why one=
 would want to specify it. If the op allowed both cases (specifying a numbe=
r of inputs and allowing any number), it seems like the best of both worlds=
. I started a discussion on=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://bitcointalk.org/" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcointalk.org</a>:</div><div><br></div><a href=3D"https://bit=
cointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D5220520" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcointa=
lk.org/index.php?topic=3D5220520</a>=C2=A0=C2=A0<br></div>

--00000000000025dfb9059ced1bc8--