--- Day changed Fri Nov 06 2020 01:58 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 02:11 -!- midnight [~midnight@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 02:14 -!- midnight [~midnight@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined ##miniscript 03:43 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-192.252-162-14.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 06:10 < darosior> sanket1729_: could you brief me on https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-miniscript/pull/150#discussion_r518770701 ? Why do we want a dissat cost for SHA256 if it's malleable ? 06:11 < sanket1729_> sure 06:13 < sanket1729_> As a general policy for the library, we want to accept malleable scripts. 06:13 < sanket1729_> So, we cannnot panic threre 06:13 < sanket1729_> now the question is between None or Some(x) 06:15 < sanket1729_> Even if the script is malleable(there can be many possible dissatisfactions), the cost of all of them is same and can be used for estimation. 06:16 < sanket1729_> This is of course a design decision which we can also return None to let the user know that the script is malleable and estimates may not be accurate 06:19 < sanket1729_> To answer the other question, We do not want to ignore malleable dissatisfactions while calculating the functions. We do ignore non-cannonical dissatifactions(dissat that require satisfactions of other fragments) 06:19 < darosior> Yeah, actually i assumed something wrong 06:19 < darosior> That we had other non-canonical dissats 06:19 < darosior> And we returned None 06:20 < darosior> But checking right now and we don't :) 06:23 < darosior> Hmm so i should fill_ops_count_nsat as well.. 06:23 < darosior> Will add a new commit rather than amending 06:24 < sanket1729_> we can keep that as separate PR. I think this is almost good to go 06:27 < darosior> Ok, will open a new PR with the commit then 08:54 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined ##miniscript 09:20 < andytoshi> sanket1729_: we can make individual instances of ToPkCtx be references, but if we take it by reference then we make things less ergonomic (require adding &s everywhere, even on tuples) 09:21 < sanket1729_> So, if I understand correctly you want ToPkCtx to implement Copy? 10:48 < andytoshi> i think it's fine if it just implements Clone 10:49 < andytoshi> well, hmm 10:49 < andytoshi> my reasoning here is that i want nice ergonomics with tuples 10:50 < andytoshi> i.e. i'd like (&secp_ctx, &map_of_keys) to be an acceptable thing to pass as a PkCtx 10:50 < andytoshi> and i'd rather the code not be littered with .clone()s everywhere when we expect that all in-practice instances of PkCtx will be Copy 10:50 < andytoshi> so yeah, I guess Copy is fine as a bound 11:18 < sanket1729_> Yeah, in all practical cases we expect it to be Copy 15:19 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:02 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined ##miniscript 19:02 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host] 19:02 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##miniscript 22:24 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 22:25 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.30] has joined ##miniscript