MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1JO1xrnJ9GwGM4TgLH_rL_LpnZgSb1SyeEOJ9Gzc1VMbKUrmxSh-zUXKwFNvp_5wyiDtRviOf-gRJbrfbhOJl-qym1eEHXpoDAgjE9juucw=@protonmail.com>
 <629505ec-81ba-013d-43a0-009d61fada23@gazeta.pl>
In-Reply-To: <629505ec-81ba-013d-43a0-009d61fada23@gazeta.pl>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 15:31:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpCNpy2j3hoV3-WsjrDYXx1wdsdwVGeagY+pVcjZ7Rk+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: vjudeu <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a4104f05de6bfeab"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy covenants (OP_CAT2)
Precedence: list

--000000000000a4104f05de6bfeab
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 5:52 AM <vjudeu@gazeta.pl> wrote:

> > Re-enabling OP_CAT with the exact same OP would be a hardfork, but
> creating a new OP_CAT2 that does the same would be a softfork.
>
> We have TapScript for that. OP_CAT is defined as OP_SUCCESS, it can be
> re-enabled in a soft-fork way. For now, OP_CAT in TapScript simply means
> "anyone can move those coins", so adding some restrictions is all we need
> to re-enable this opcode. Introducing OP_CAT2 is not needed at all, unless
> it will be totally different, but then it should not be named as OP_CAT2,
> but rather as OP_SOMETHING_ELSE, it depends how different it will be from
> OP_CAT.
>

Oh, well, I didn't know any of that. I guess it could be a modification of
OP_SUCCESS if it makes sense instead of a new opcode.

--000000000000a4104f05de6bfeab
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 5:52 AM &lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:vjudeu@gazeta.pl">vjudeu@gazeta.pl</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">&gt; Re-enabling OP_CAT w=
ith the exact same OP would be a hardfork, but creating a new OP_CAT2 that =
does the same would be a softfork.<br>
<br>
We have TapScript for that. OP_CAT is defined as OP_SUCCESS, it can be re-e=
nabled in a soft-fork way. For now, OP_CAT in TapScript simply means &quot;=
anyone can move those coins&quot;, so adding some restrictions is all we ne=
ed to re-enable this opcode. Introducing OP_CAT2 is not needed at all, unle=
ss it will be totally different, but then it should not be named as OP_CAT2=
, but rather as OP_SOMETHING_ELSE, it depends how different it will be from=
 OP_CAT.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh, well, I didn&#39;t know an=
y of that. I guess it could be a modification of OP_SUCCESS if it makes sen=
se instead of a new opcode.</div><div><br></div></div></div>

--000000000000a4104f05de6bfeab--