Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:51:38 -0800
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of darosior@protonmail.com designates 185.70.40.130 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.70.40.130;
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:33:32 +0000
To: Murch <murch@murch.one>
From: "'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY/ADD)
Message-ID: <nRFLHRhwXER56TrZy50tJ2HmvipjteXzPfz6mEs_VmyZ5sXDNVUIUniPppSphF5SOVCQmpRZSjmBN8_eIMZEbdFgl3vJn-8XSEmpAFmj5SM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c91269ac-e579-4089-bf9a-fdc076e34727@murch.one>
References: <ZzZziZOy4IrTNbNG@console> <c91269ac-e579-4089-bf9a-fdc076e34727@murch.one>
Feedback-ID: 7060259:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

To add to Murch's point, from my experience working with Script in general =
and
trying to estimate the cost of validation of legacy script as part of the
consensus cleanup in particular, i think we should refrain from modifying l=
egacy
Script and further complicate reasoning about the worst case unless strictl=
y
necessary.

Best,
Antoine

On Friday, November 15th, 2024 at 9:57 AM, Murch <murch@murch.one> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>=20
> On 2024-11-14 17:02, Brandon Black wrote:
>=20
> > * Should CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY (CSFSV) be added to pre-tapscript
> > [=E2=80=A6]
> > My personal thinking in initially including CSFSV in earlier script ver=
sions was basically that it's compatible with NOP forking, so why not.
>=20
>=20
> If there is no compelling use case or concrete benefit, I don=E2=80=99t t=
hink "it=E2=80=99s compatible, why not" is convincing motivation, especiall=
y at the cost of a NOP.
>=20
> On 2024-11-14 17:02, Brandon Black wrote:
>=20
> > * Should we include CHECKSIGFROMSTACKADD?
>=20
>=20
> I feel similar about this. If there is currently no demand for this, and =
future demand also seems unlikely, I would prefer a smaller, more focused s=
et of changes.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Murch
>=20
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
 "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinde=
v/c91269ac-e579-4089-bf9a-fdc076e34727%40murch.one.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
nRFLHRhwXER56TrZy50tJ2HmvipjteXzPfz6mEs_VmyZ5sXDNVUIUniPppSphF5SOVCQmpRZSjm=
BN8_eIMZEbdFgl3vJn-8XSEmpAFmj5SM%3D%40protonmail.com.