> On 16 Dec 2018, at 7:38 AM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:39 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 5. if there's exactly one, non-zero item on the stack; succeed
>
> Unless it is too much bikeshedding, I'd like to propose that to succeed the
> stack must be exactly empty. Script is more composable that way, removing
> the need for special logic to handle top-level CHECKSIG, vs mid-level
> CHECKSIGVERIFY.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
I proposed the same in BIP114. I wish Satoshi had designed that way. But I’m
not sure if that would do more harm than good. For example, people might lose
money by copying an existing script template. But they might also lose money in
the same way as CHECKMULTISIG is disabled. So I’m not sure.
Another related thing I’d like to bikeshed is to pop the stack after OP_CLTV
and OP_CSV. The same pros and cons apply.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
