--- Day changed Sun Nov 29 2020
01:03 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##miniscript     
01:09 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
02:09 < afilini> dariosor: yeah I think it looks good the way you've done it
02:10 < afilini> and I made a typo in your name, sorry darosior :/
02:14 -!- afilini [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/afilini] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:57 < darosior> afilini: ok, thanks!
02:57 < darosior> Sure :)
02:58 < darosior> sanket1729_: but as andytoshi pointed out (00:38), this would be detected at parse time ?
05:49 < andytoshi> it might not be if you use parse_insane
05:50 < andytoshi> sanket1729_: do you know offhand if there are standardness rules that apply to the witness script by itself?
05:50 < andytoshi> that are not consensus rules?
06:25 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
06:46 < darosior> andytoshi: iirc there is the script size that is part of policy
06:49 < andytoshi> sigh why is bitcoin so weird
06:50 < andytoshi> yeah, i see, it's on pieter's miniscript page, there's a 3600 byte limit
06:50 < andytoshi> oh, i think though, "insane" does not mean "nonstandard"
06:52 < andytoshi> yeah ok phew
06:52 < andytoshi> darosior: ok, so sanket1729_'s comment on the PR is right ... we always (sane or insane) check global policy limits when parsing
06:53 < andytoshi> i don't think there's anywhere in rust-miniscript where we allow non-standard things to slip by
06:53 < darosior> andytoshi: so we should drop the checks at satisfaction time ?
06:53 < andytoshi> yep     
06:55 < andytoshi> an unrelated thing that i've been musing about ... if we have a script that you can satisfy, but only if you grind your signatures to be tiny, we do the right thing there right?
06:55 < andytoshi> that is, when we're actually satisfying, we don't assume signatures are 73 bytes anymore, we use the actual signature size?
06:56 < darosior> I think they always are 71 ?
06:56 < darosior> At least i've assumed so
06:57 < andytoshi> are you disputing my specific number, or the general crux of what i'm saying?
06:57 < andytoshi> 71 sounds like a normal sig but i think our worst-case bounds all use 73
06:57 < andytoshi> but i could be wrong
06:58 < darosior> Oh no we account for 73
06:58 < darosior> I was wrong
06:58 < andytoshi> ok .. regardless, we do that when estimating bounds .. but when we're checking our satisfaction limits, we don't do this right?
06:58  * darosior checks
06:59 < darosior> We don't check each witness element size, so i don't think we account for a specific size for the sigs
07:00 < darosior> Maybe for legacy Ctx..
07:00 < darosior> We do check it for legacy and use 73 
07:01 < andytoshi> o.o     
07:01 < darosior> But that makes sense, doesn't it ?
07:02 < andytoshi> no, if we're checking whether a satisfaction is valid we have an actual signature
07:02 < andytoshi> so why would we make up a number
07:02 < darosior> I think we check it at parse time, we don't have the satisfaction yet
07:03 < darosior> So we account for the worse-case satisfaction given this script?
07:03 < andytoshi> this isn't a global limit though