From: Luke Durback <luke.durback@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Standard BIP Draft: Turing Pseudo-Completeness
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:35:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEj3M+wYicoACcpG5YUU6vF8vg98XCcJWmgBiyrJj-xHHxrhig@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1910 bytes --]
Hello Bitcoin-Dev,
I hope this isn't out of line, but I joined the mailing list to try to
start a discussion on adding opcodes to make Script Turing Pseudo-Complete
as Wright suggested is possible.
---
In line with Wright's suggestion, I propose adding a return stack alongside
the, already existing, control stack.
The principle opcodes (excluding conditional versions of call and
return_from) needed are
OP_DEFINITION_START FunctionName: The code that follows is the definition
of a new function to be named TransactionSenderAddress.FunctionName. If
this function name is already taken, the transaction is marked invalid.
Within the transaction, the function can be called simply as FunctionName.
OP_DEFINITION_END: This ends a function definition
OP_FUNCTION_NAME FunctionName: Gives the current transaction the name
FunctionName (this is necessary to build recursive functions)
---
OP_CALL Namespace.FunctionName Value TransactionFee: This marks the
transaction as valid. It also pushes the current execution location onto
the return stack, debits the calling transaction by the TransactionFee and
Value, and creates a new transaction specified by Namespace.FunctionName
with both stacks continued from before (this may be dangerous, but I see no
way around it) with the specified value.
OP_RETURN_FROM_CALL_AND_CONTINUE: This pops the top value off the return
stack and continues from the specified location with both stacks in tact.
---
It would also be useful if a transaction can create another transaction
arbitrarily, so to prepare for that, I additionally propose
OP_NAMESPACE: Pushes the current namespace onto the control stack
This, combined with the ability to make new transactions arbitrarily would
allow a function to pay its creator.
I understand that this isn't all that is needed, but I think it's a start.
I hope this proposal has met you all well,
Luke Durback
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2384 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2015-12-10 1:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-10 1:35 Luke Durback [this message]
2015-12-10 4:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-10 4:23 ` Luke Durback
2015-12-10 5:38 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-10 6:36 ` Luke Durback
2015-12-11 15:36 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-11 15:38 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-11 21:45 ` Luke Durback
2015-12-12 20:00 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-12 21:01 ` Emin Gün Sirer
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=CAEj3M+wYicoACcpG5YUU6vF8vg98XCcJWmgBiyrJj-xHHxrhig@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luke.durback@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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