Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki

From: Brandon Black <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:11:59 -0800

Hi AJ,

On 2024-12-11 (Wed) at 23:28:42 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:45:35PM -0800, Brandon Black wrote:
> > First, my example scripts for Lightning Symmetry all use opcodes that do
> > not exist in the script testing environments so I cannot run my scripts
> > through those environments.
> 
> You've implemented your code against bitcoin inquisition 27.x [0],
> which already includes an "evalscript" subcommand [1] that allows you
> to do precisely that, even without updating the functional test suite
> so that CI passes. So, yes, you can run your scripts through testing
> environments.

There seems to still be some confusion here. The script you found a bug
in was using OP_VAULT, which I haven't implemented and which is not in
inquisition.

> You can also easily tweak your scripts to run them through unmodified
> testing environments to at least ensure you aren't making trivial errors
> and to check the stack is working the way you think it should -- replace
> the new commands with OP_NOP (for things like CTV) or OP_2DROP OP_VERIFY
> (for things like CHECKSIGVERIFY, where an empty signature would fail,
> and there are two other arguments to ignore).
> 
> > The fact that I misglanced the opcode list
> > during drafting is completely irrelevant to the exercise.
> 
> That you made a mistake is perhaps excusable, though as someone proposing
> to modify the script language, being more than glancingly familiar with
> script as it is today seems like a pretty basic expectation. That you
> didn't put your work through even the most basic testing cycle before
> publicising it isn't so excusable. [2]

I must have been unclear in how I published my recent script hacking to
trigger this type of response. I did not say, "here are production ready
scripts that I've validated for securing your funds." I hacked up a
proof of concept to demonstrate conceptually how certain types of things
can be done using certain proposed opcodes. Why would I have run them
through a testing environment? Why would I have worried about whether
there's 3DROP or only 3DUP? Those are irrelevant to whether CCV or VAULT
can be used as part of a Lightning Symmetry implementation. Details that
can be worked out later.

I published my results and how I arrived at them (in the gist showing my
expected stack progression) and anyone can correct me (as you did).

> It's utterly astounding to me that you're publicising your project
> as "lnhance" [3] and yet are willing to be that careless in your
> demonstrations of how it might enhance the lightning network.

My work on demonstrating how opcodes unrelated to LNHANCE can also be
used for Lightning Symmetry is somehow related to my work on LNHANCE
how?

Did I do something to offend you?

Best,

--Brandon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/Z1mrvy1wDcqxjXob%40console.