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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <theymos@mm.st>) id 1RgBb8-0002ZI-1T
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:44:26 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mm.st
designates 66.111.4.26 as permitted sender)
client-ip=66.111.4.26; envelope-from=theymos@mm.st;
helo=out2.smtp.messagingengine.com;
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RgBb6-0004Df-V9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:44:25 +0000
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44])
by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE8620F8B
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:44:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.213])
by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:44:19 -0500
Received: by web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99)
id 4715C4008B; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:44:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1325148259.14431.140661016987461@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: UliXItH1rJzaUEtJxLdHhdjZWaIwpknyrSZkv/Q9eW4g 1325148259
From: "theymos" <theymos@mm.st>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1112290111310.22327@theorem.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1112290111310.22327@theorem.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:44:19 -0600
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
(theymos[at]mm.st)
-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: 1RgBb6-0004Df-V9
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: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:44:26 -0000
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.
I think that something like OP_EVAL will eventually be used to improve
Script in a backward-compatible way (enable the disabled math ops, fix
bugs, etc.), so the mechanism might as well be used now. The only
advantage I see with OP_CODEHASH is that script ops won't need to be in
Script "strings".
|
