From: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ephemeral Anchors: Fixing V3 Package RBF againstpackage limit pinning
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:47:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB3F3Ds7Ux8MWnY-9Agehpk0hZx_xgeFmZG7hUjMkfe48T5GPA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y9wbjsmPO+nyM267@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]
> OP_TRUE is the obvious way to do this, and it results with a 1 on the
stack,
which plays better with other standardness rules.
What other standardness rules? MINAMALIF? How does that interact with the
proposal?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:22 PM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 01:36:24PM -0500, Greg Sanders wrote:
> > Quickly checked, it fails a number of standardness tests in
> unit/functional
> > tests in Bitcoin Core, at least.
> >
> > OP_2 was actually Luke Jr's idea circa 2017 for about the same reasons, I
> > just independently arrived at the same conclusion.
>
> Well, frankly I really don't like the idea of using OP_2 just to avoid
> changing
> some unit tests. We're doing something that many people will use for years
> to
> come, that's unnecessarily obscure just because we don't want to spend a
> bit of
> some modifying some tests to pass.
>
> OP_TRUE is the obvious way to do this, and it results with a 1 on the
> stack,
> which plays better with other standardness rules. OP_2 means we *also* may
> need
> to special case having a 2 on the stack in certain implementations of other
> standardness rules.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1776 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-02 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-18 13:52 [bitcoin-dev] Ephemeral Anchors: Fixing V3 Package RBF against package " Greg Sanders
2022-10-18 15:33 ` [bitcoin-dev] Ephemeral Anchors: Fixing V3 Package RBF againstpackage " Arik Sosman
2022-10-18 15:51 ` Greg Sanders
2022-10-18 16:41 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-10-18 18:18 ` Greg Sanders
2022-10-19 15:11 ` James O'Beirne
2022-10-20 13:42 ` Greg Sanders
2022-10-27 9:37 ` Johan Torås Halseth
2022-11-30 15:32 ` Greg Sanders
2023-01-27 14:05 ` Greg Sanders
2023-02-02 14:52 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 14:59 ` Greg Sanders
2023-02-02 15:06 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 18:36 ` Greg Sanders
2023-02-02 20:22 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 20:47 ` Greg Sanders [this message]
2023-02-03 22:10 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-04 2:07 ` Greg Sanders
2023-02-04 16:02 ` Peter Todd
2023-03-13 16:38 ` Greg Sanders
2022-10-19 0:33 ` [bitcoin-dev] Ephemeral Anchors: Fixing V3 Package RBF against package " Antoine Riard
2022-10-19 13:22 ` Greg Sanders
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAB3F3Ds7Ux8MWnY-9Agehpk0hZx_xgeFmZG7hUjMkfe48T5GPA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gsanders87@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox