--- Log opened Wed Oct 11 00:00:53 2023
02:47 <@darosior> Thanks for doing it achow101
04:16 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
04:57 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
08:58 -!- salvatoshi [~salvatosh@lfbn-idf3-1-1331-187.w92-170.abo.wanadoo.fr] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:44 <@achow101> i'm just gonna send it to the list and see if anyone else has comments
14:50 <@sipa> i think it's worth spending some time thinking about the exact scope is
15:01 <@achow101> ideally it should be everything that's needed to implement a parser and satisfier that doesn't make anything invalid or dangerous
15:02 <@achow101> it might be useful to ask the independent implementors about what they thought was missing from the site?
15:02 <@achow101> and what parts did they ignore
15:06 <@sipa> big open questions for me are (a) is malleability included as part of the spec (b) is the satisfaction algorithm in scope? (c) is resource limiting part of the spec?
15:08 <@achow101> "is malleability included" do you mean if it should be mentioned at all?
15:09 <@achow101> I did consider not including the non-canonical satisfactions
15:10 <@sipa> i think a possible position is that we don't consider malleability part of the spec ("you can be compliant without analysing malleability") but still say include it as an appendex
15:10 <@sipa> my question is mostly what do we consider to be exactly part of the spec
15:14 <@achow101> I think malleability should be included since leaving it as optional could result in some things being accepted by some parsers while rejected by others
15:15 <@achow101> so all valid miniscript would be defined as all that have a non-malleable satisfaction
15:17 <@sipa> well, i don't think we have a binary answer to whether non-malleable miniscript is "valid"
15:17 <@sipa> maybe we should have an answer to that is either "yes" or "no" for the purpose of the bip, but i don't think we already have discussed that
15:22 <@achow101> what is the argument to not include malleability?
15:25 <@sipa> well it expands the scope of miniscript to cover maybe some set of scripts that people want to use
15:26 <@sipa> malleable scripts we can still sign for
15:27 <@achow101> if that ends up being something people want to do, the restriction can just be dropped later?
15:27 <@sipa> that's true
15:36 <@achow101> the satisfaction algo should be in the spec then as that seems to be necessary to ensure non-malleability
15:39 <@achow101> I think resource limits don't need to be in the spec, but should be in the appendix
15:40 <@sipa> well that too can create ambiguity about what is valid and what is not
15:40 <@sipa> arguably, worse than malleabiliy- because resource limits can cause the inability to satisfy at all
15:41 <@sipa> vs just not non-malleably
15:42 <@achow101> perhaps the resource limits related to consensus should be
15:49 -!- Earnestly [~earnest@user/earnestly] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:49 -!- Earnestly [~earnest@user/earnestly] has joined ##miniscript
--- Log closed Thu Oct 12 00:00:54 2023