--- Log opened Sat Jan 08 00:00:24 2022 06:39 -!- elsirion_ [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/elsirion] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 06:39 -!- elsirion [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/elsirion] has joined ##miniscript 07:55 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.18] has joined ##miniscript 07:57 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.18] has quit [Client Quit] 08:04 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.18] has joined ##miniscript 08:04 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.18] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:05 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.18] has joined ##miniscript 12:32 -!- MatrixBot1234510 [~matrixbot@51.15.54.153] has quit [Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM] 12:45 -!- MatrixBot12 [~matrixbot@2001:bc8:1828:379::1] has joined ##miniscript 18:25 < sanket1729> sipa: I think we landed on mulit_a 18:25 < sanket1729> and CHECKSIG CHECKSIGADD ... CHECKSIGADD m NUMEQUAL 18:26 < sanket1729> This is also mentioned in bip342 18:26 <@sipa> And just use and_v(and_v(...)) for tbe CSV CSV CS approach? 18:27 < sanket1729> n of n you mean? I think we did not consider/discuss this 18:27 <@sipa> Because the " CSV CSV CS" approach is more efficient for n-of-n 18:28 <@sipa> which we arguably already can represent in miniscript 18:28 < sanket1729> True, but I don't think we should expand multi_a(n, n) to two different things. 18:28 <@sipa> agree 18:28 < sanket1729> Yeah, we can represent it in miniscript 18:29 < sanket1729> Note the NUMEQUAL in the last opcode instead of EQUAL 18:29 <@sipa> yeah --- Log closed Sun Jan 09 00:00:25 2022