> 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