From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:56:27 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.12.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.34; x86_64; ; )
References: <201710010113.30518.luke@dashjr.org>
	<30B31B43-B603-4793-BDFB-B7E25FD96D1B@xbt.hk>
	<50CA8523-3D1A-409E-9B7D-51EA5FC4B898@friedenbach.org>
In-Reply-To: <50CA8523-3D1A-409E-9B7D-51EA5FC4B898@friedenbach.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201710020256.27964.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Version 1 witness programs (first draft)
Precedence: list

On Monday 02 October 2017 12:35:38 AM Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > b. OP_RETURNTRUE (Luke). I proposed this in an earlier version of BIP114
> > but now I think it doesn=E2=80=99t interact well with signature aggrega=
tion, and
> > I worry that it would have some other unexpected effects. c. Generalised
> > NOP method: user has to provide the returned value, so even VERIFY-type
> > code could do anything
>=20
> I see no reason to do either. Gate new behavior based on script execution
> flags, which are set based on the script version.  Script versions not
> understood are treated as "return true" to begin with.  The interpreter
> isn't even going to try to decode the script according to the old rules,
> let alone try to execute it, so there's no reason for the old soft-fork
> compatability tricks.
>=20
> The new soft-fork trick is that you increment the script version number.=
=20
> That is all.

This breaks parallel softfork deployments.

> > b. scriptWitCode: extra scripts are put in some fixed location in witne=
ss
> > (Johnson). This makes sure static analysability. c. Extra-data as script
> > in OP_CHECKSIG (Luke)
>=20
> Propose these as their own script updates.  Script versioning makes such
> new features cheap.  There's no reason to create some sort of complex
> omnibus overhaul that does everything.

Only if there's common code to implement both versions, which doesn't work =
if=20
the changes from A to B to C are drastic. To avoid such drastic changes, th=
e=20
overall design/layout needs to at least be planned to cover the desired use=
=20
cases in advance.

Luke