--- Log opened Wed Nov 13 00:00:06 2019
02:53 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:21 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.74] has joined #bitmetas
05:13 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.74] has quit [Quit: jonatack]
06:40 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.164.55.120] has joined #bitmetas
07:43 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.164.55.120] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:23 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined #bitmetas
08:33 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitmetas
08:33 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Changing host]
08:33 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has joined #bitmetas
13:55 < jeremyrubin> So out of the poll... people don't really mind OP_SECURETHEBAG (48% voted for that name). Twitter's not binding, it just shows that it's tought to name. Would anyone oppose the name "CHECKTXTEMPLATEHASHVERIFY"
13:56 < jeremyrubin> Or maybe just CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY
13:56 < jeremyrubin> As we can late do other types of template using extensibility 
21:30 < jeremyrubin> So in https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/commit/e68be3b2a8e955fcf6e7ed2629aa3a9d2e4ffe27, I change how OP_CTV (formerly STB) works. Instead of being `OP_STV <32 byte push>` it's now `<32 byte push> OP_CTV` and we check that the the 32 bytes is a constexpr to enforce the OP_CTV rule, otherwise treat as a NOP.
21:31 < jeremyrubin> the comment at https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/commit/e68be3b2a8e955fcf6e7ed2629aa3a9d2e4ffe27#diff-be2905e2f5218ecdbe4e55637dac75f3R471-R486 explains how this allows for in the future more things to be treated as constexpr, or the limitation to be removed altogether
21:33 < jeremyrubin> Does anyone feel this is better?
21:33 < jeremyrubin> There's then no weirdness around the 'lookahead argument', but we are now tracking if we immediately previously executed a pushdata of any kind
22:49 < aj> jeremyrubin: i don't think requiring a constexpr is necessary, my feeling is tracking a pushdata's better if so though, will look at the code in a min
22:50 < aj> jeremyrubin: yeah, that code looks good to me
22:50 < aj> jeremyrubin: (style-wise, didn't check for bugs)
--- Log closed Thu Nov 14 00:00:08 2019