1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>) id 1Rgvdx-0006DJ-4p
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:54:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=joel.kaartinen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Rgvdw-0002p4-B9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:54:25 +0000
Received: by lami14 with SMTP id i14so7788935lam.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.146.99 with SMTP id tb3mr24547153lab.7.1325325257788;
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [91.153.84.115] (a91-153-84-115.elisa-laajakaista.fi.
[91.153.84.115])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id on4sm33442324lab.7.2011.12.31.01.54.16
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:54:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>
To: roconnor@theorem.ca
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1112291135040.22327@theorem.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1112290111310.22327@theorem.ca>
<1325148259.14431.140661016987461@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<alpine.LRH.2.00.1112291135040.22327@theorem.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:54:13 +0200
Message-ID: <1325325253.2800.3.camel@mei>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(joel.kaartinen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Rgvdw-0002p4-B9
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alternative to OP_EVAL
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:54:25 -0000
Wouldn't it work to restrict the number of executions of OP_EVAL allowed
per transaction? That way it wouldn't allow for unlimited looping. If
there's too many OP_EVAL executions during the transaction evaluation,
just consider the transaction illegal. 3 would be enough for the
purposes people have been planning for here I think.
- Joel
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 11:42 -0500, roconnor@theorem.ca wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011, theymos wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011, at 01:55 AM, roconnor@theorem.ca wrote:
> >> The number of operations executed is still bounded by the number of
> >> operations occurring in the script. With the OP_EVAL proposal the
> >> script language becomes essentially Turing complete, with only an
> >> artificial limit on recursion depth preventing arbitrary computation
> >> and there is no way to know what code will run without executing it.
> >
> > Even if OP_EVAL allowed infinite depth, you'd still need to explicitly
> > specify all operations performed, since there is no way of looping.
>
> That's not true. Gavin himself showed how to use OP_EVAL to loop:
> OP_PUSHDATA {OP_DUP OP_EVAL} OP_DUP OP_EVAL.
>
> Basically OP_DUP lets you duplicate the code on the stack and that is the
> key to looping. I'm pretty sure from here we get get Turing completeness.
> Using the stack operations I expect you can implement the SK-calculus
> given an OP_EVAL that allows arbitrary depth.
>
> OP_EVAL adds dangerously expressive power to the scripting language.
>
|
