--- Day changed Wed Apr 22 2020
00:13 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
00:17 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined ##miniscript     
05:37 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has joined ##miniscript     
06:09 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Quit: jonatack]     
06:23 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined ##miniscript     
07:01 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode]     
07:46 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:46 -!- afk11` [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:46 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:47 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
07:49 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.138] has joined ##miniscript     
08:00 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined ##miniscript     
08:01 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined ##miniscript     
08:04 -!- afk11` [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined ##miniscript     
08:06 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has joined ##miniscript     
08:07 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has quit [Client Quit]     
08:16 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has joined ##miniscript     
08:28 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:29 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined ##miniscript     
09:03 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:03 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined ##miniscript     
10:38 -!- bjdweck [51dac316@bzq-218-195-22.red.bezeqint.net] has joined ##miniscript     
10:41 < bjdweck> Hi - looking at the miniscript spec at http://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/...  Having trouble understanding how andor(X,Y,Z) "(X and Y) or Z" semantics are equivalent to Bitcoin Script fragment: [X] NOTIF [Z] ELSE [Y] ENDIF
10:41 < bjdweck> Particularly in a case where X is TRUE, Y is FALSE and Z is TRUE...
11:43 < gwillen> heh that doesn't seem right, a bug in the doc perhaps
11:43 < gwillen> hmm I am surprised that sipa is not in here
12:35 < achow101> bjdweck: that's not a valid satisfaction
12:36 < achow101> either you provide X and Y, or you provide Z
12:36 < achow101> there's no X and Z
12:40 < gwillen> I am confused about how to interpret what you're saying achow101, but possibly it's because I am not familiar enough with miniscript
12:40 < gwillen> at the bitcoin script level you do have to push "false" for [X] before executing this script to get the [Z] branch, right?
12:41 < achow101> gwillen: when you construct the witness, you already know which branches are going to be taken. So you know whether it will be (X and Y) or Z. If at that time, you have X and Z, you know that Z will be the taken branch. So X should then not be provided and given as 0 in the witness
12:43 < gwillen> oh hmm
12:43 < achow101> essentially the script isn't dynamically determining which branches succed or not
12:43 < achow101> that's why there are specific satisfaction rules
12:44 < achow101> when the witness is being constructed, you are determining the branches and then providing the right elements to take those branches
12:46 < gwillen> so if I'm understanding this right, the provided script is POSSIBLE to satisfy if and only iff "(X and Y) or Z" is true
12:46 < gwillen> it's just that the WAY you satisfy it is slightly nonintutive here
12:46 < achow101> yes     
12:47 < gwillen> because if you are using the Z branch, you must not provide X even if you have it
12:47 < achow101> yes     
12:47 < gwillen> and this makes sense because it's an optimization that makes the script shorter
12:47 < gwillen> but does not change the set of possible satisfactions, only how you spell them
12:48 < achow101> If you wanted to dissatisfy this branch, then you could give X and not Y. That is a valid dissatisfaction and the entire expression is false
12:49 < achow101> but yeah, this requires a different frame of thinking from normal programming
12:51 < gwillen> and in general you can always choose to dissatisfy something that you are able to satisfy
12:51 < gwillen> so there is not, and cannot be, a "not" in miniscript
12:52 < gwillen> because you would generally always be able to satisfy it no matter what
12:52 < gwillen> this is related to constructive logic somehow, huh
13:13 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode]     
13:24 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has joined ##miniscript     
14:37 < bjdweck> Got it...  It occurred to me after I wrote this that the answer is along these lines...  because it's within the witnessScript writer's ability to satisfy the script using Z alone if he possesses it...  thanks!
18:14 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.138] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
18:16 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.202.229] has joined ##miniscript     
18:20 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be01:b201:1885:5393:cbbe:8254] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode]     
18:29 -!- bjdweck [51dac316@bzq-218-195-22.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]