On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:47 PM Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au> wrote:
> > To redo the singleton pattern in bitcoin's context, I think you'd have > to pass in both the full tx you're spending (to be able to get the > txid of its parent) and the full tx of its parent (to be able to get > the scriptPubKey that your utxo spent) which seems klunky but at least > possible (you'd be able to drop the witness data at least; without that > every tx would be including the entire history of the singleton). > Yes that's the idea. Since the parent transaction is in the blockchain it could be pulled in automatically without having to charge vbytes for it. > If softfork is just doing a best effort for whatever opcodes it knows > about, and otherwise succeeding, then it has to succeed, and your > script/output has become anyone-can-spend. > That can be alleviated by when things call untrusted code they can wrap it in a guard which can be the soft fork opcode itself. > > On the other hand, if you could tell the softfork op that you only wanted > ops up-to-and-including the 118 softfork, then it could reject fakeopcode > and fail the script, which I think gives the desirable behaviour. > A simple approach to versioning like that may be more expedient. Soft forking in CLVM isn't implemented yet.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
