--- Log opened Wed Jun 19 00:00:29 2024
01:19 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
01:20 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:20 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
01:23 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
01:34 -!- Earnestly [~earnest@user/earnestly] has joined ##miniscript
01:46 -!- Earnestly [~earnest@user/earnestly] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.3.0-dev]
01:47 -!- Earnestly [~earnest@user/earnestly] has joined ##miniscript
02:15 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
02:16 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
02:19 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
02:19 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
02:52 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
02:54 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
02:58 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
03:00 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
03:15 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
03:15 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
03:23 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
03:23 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
03:29 -!- katsu [~0x0ff@user/0x0ff/x-0302470] has quit [Quit: disconnected]
03:29 -!- katsu_ [~0x0ff@user/0x0ff/x-0302470] has joined ##miniscript
03:41 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
03:42 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
03:43 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Excess Flood]
03:44 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
03:54 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
03:55 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:08 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
04:10 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:43 -!- josie_ [~josibake@suhail.uberspace.de] has joined ##miniscript
04:44 -!- josie [~josibake@2a00:d0c0:200:3:ccd:dff:fec0:d062] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
04:48 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
04:50 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:55 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
04:57 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
05:30 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:30 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
06:55 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
06:57 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
07:09 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
07:11 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
10:17 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:15 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
11:15 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:47 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined ##miniscript
14:45 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
14:48 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
14:49 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
15:47 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined ##miniscript
16:04 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:27 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined ##miniscript
20:07 < achow101> Hmm, the n argument for older() and after() seems a bit underspecified to me
20:08 < achow101> after() uses CSV, which does extra stuff with interpreting the argument like having flags for the type rather than a threshold, and also granularity of 512 seconds, rather than 1 second
20:08 < achow101> does after(n) just encode n as given literally, or does it interpret it in some way and then encode the closest to what the user meant?
20:09 < achow101> it seems like in Core, it's passed straight through literally, thus requiring the user to know the CSV stuff and give the right value
20:11 < achow101> also, IIRC CSV never checks against nLockTime, so you could do and(older(a), after(b)) where a and b are different timelock types, and that would be valid?
20:14 < achow101> s/after/older for wherever I meant the one that uses CSV
20:15 <@sipa> well the table on https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/ is pretty unambiguous i think that after(n) and older(n) are translated to <n> CHECK{SEQUENCE,LOCKTIME}VERIFY
20:15 -!- mode/##miniscript [+o achow101] by sipa
20:16 <@sipa> so there is no interpretation... i think the idea was that we'd have such interpretation in the policy compiler, and we talked about various formats but i don't think anything ever materialized
20:17 <@sipa> and(older([some height]),after([some time])) is valid i believe, yes
20:19 <@sipa> and by valid i mean satisfiable
20:19 <@sipa> arguably, and(older([height]),older([time])) is also valid in that it's parseable and can be part of a satisfiable miniscript, but only in a non-satisfied branch
20:27 <@achow101> ah, so Core does correctly distinguish all of these, it's just the text for the BIP that was proposed was not specific enough
20:28 <@achow101> trying to figure out how to word this in a way that doesn't add 5 types
21:12 <@sipa> ah i see
21:13 <@sipa> yeah, timelock mixing is detected separately within relative timelocks, and within absolute timelocks
21:13 <@sipa> and either of those results in the k property being lost
--- Log closed Thu Jun 20 00:00:30 2024