On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:39 PM Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Also, if future disabling isn't the point of making a tx type like
> OP_CODESEPARATOR non-standard - what is?  If we're committed to indefinite
> support of these oddball features, what do we gain by making them hard to
> use/mine?
>

The purpose of making OP_CODESEPARATOR non-standard was to partly mitigate
the risk of the vulnerability that OP_CODESEPARATOR induces while we
consider how to patch it.

>