On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:18:24AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net> writes:
> >> 3. Should we restrict elsewhere instead?  After all, OP_CAT doesn't
> >>    change total stack size, which is arguably the real limit?
> >> 
> >
> > Interesting thought. Right now the stack size is limited to 1000
> > elements of 520 bytes each, which theoretically means a limit of 520k.
> > Bitcoin Core doesn't explicitly count the "total stack size" in the
> > sense that you're suggesting; it just enforces these two limits
> > separately.
> 
> BTW, I'm just learning of the 1000 element limit; I couldn't see it on
> scanning BIP-141.
>

This limit is very old and predates segwit. It might predate P2SH.

> > I think trying to add a "total stack size limit" (which would have to
> > live alongside the two existing limits; we can't replace them without
> > a whole new Tapscript version) would add a fair bit of accounting
> > complextiy and wind up touching almost every other opcode...probably
> > not worth the added consensus logic.
> 
> Simplest thing I can come up with:
> 
> - instead of counting simple stack depth, count each stack entry as
>   (1 + <size>/520) entries?  You can still only push 520 bytes, so you
>   can only make these with OP_CAT.
> 
> Looking in interpreter.cpp, `stack` and `altstack` now need to be
> objects to count entries differently (not vectors), but it seems like
> it'd be simple enough, and the logic could be enabled unconditionally
> since it Cannot Be Violated prior to OP_CAT.
>

I had a similar thought. But my feeling is that replacing the stack
interpreter data structure is still too invasive to justify the benefit.

Also, one of my favorite things about this BIP is the tiny diff.

-- 
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
    -Justin Lewis-Webster