I agree that there is no reason not to use OP_SUCCESS126, i.e. the original OP_CAT opcode 0x7e. In many codebases, for example in Core, there might be two OP_CAT constants than which might be confusing.

On 10/22/23 09:58, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This opcode would be activated via a soft fork by redefining the opcode OP_SUCCESS80. Why OP_SUCCESS80, and not OP_SUCCESS126? When there is some existing opcode, it should be reused. And if OP_RESERVED will ever be re-enabled, I think it should behave in the same way, as in pre-Taproot, so it should "Mark transaction as invalid unless occuring in an unexecuted OP_IF branch". Which means, "<condition> OP_VERIFY" should be equivalent to "<condition> OP_NOTIF OP_RESERVED OP_ENDIF".


On 2023-10-21 07:09:13 user Ethan Heilman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

    Hi everyone,

    We've posted a draft BIP to propose enabling OP_CAT as Tapscript opcode.
    https://github.com/EthanHeilman/op_cat_draft/blob/main/cat.mediawiki

    OP_CAT was available in early versions of Bitcoin. It was disabled as
    it allowed the construction of a script whose evaluation could create
    stack elements exponential in the size of the script. This is no
    longer an issue in the current age as tapscript enforces a maximum
    stack element size of 520 Bytes.

    Thanks,
    Ethan

    ==Abstract==

    This BIP defines OP_CAT a new tapscript opcode which allows the
    concatenation of two values on the stack. This opcode would be
    activated via a soft fork by redefining the opcode OP_SUCCESS80.

    When evaluated the OP_CAT instruction:
    # Pops the top two values off the stack,
    # concatenate the popped values together,
    # and then pushes the concatenated value on the top of the stack.

    OP_CAT fails if there are less than two values on the stack or if a
    concatenated value would have a combined size of greater than the
    maximum script element size of 520 Bytes.

    ==Motivation==
    Bitcoin tapscript lacks a general purpose way of combining objects on
    the stack restricting the expressiveness and power of tapscript. For
    instance this prevents among many other things the ability to
    construct and evaluate merkle trees and other hashed data structures
    in tapscript. OP_CAT by adding a general purpose way to concatenate
    stack values would overcome this limitation and greatly increase the
    functionality of tapscript.

    OP_CAT aims to expand the toolbox of the tapscript developer with a
    simple, modular and useful opcode in the spirit of Unix[1]. To
    demonstrate the usefulness of OP_CAT below we provide a non-exhaustive
    list of some usecases that OP_CAT would enable:

    * Tree Signatures provide a multisignature script whose size can be
    logarithmic in the number of public keys and can encode spend
    conditions beyond n-of-m. For instance a transaction less than 1KB in
    size could support tree signatures with a thousand public keys. This
    also enables generalized logical spend conditions. [2]
    * Post-Quantum Lamport Signatures in Bitcoin transactions. Lamport
    signatures merely requires the ability to hash and concatenate values
    on the stack. [3]
    * Non-equivocation contracts [4] in tapscript provide a mechanism to
    punish equivocation/double spending in Bitcoin payment channels.
    OP_CAT enables this by enforcing rules on the spending transaction's
    nonce. The capability is a useful building block for payment channels
    and other Bitcoin protocols.
    * Vaults [5] which are a specialized covenant that allows a user to
    block a malicious party who has compromised the user's secret key from
    stealing the funds in that output. As shown in A. Poelstra, "CAT
    and Schnorr Tricks II", 2021,
    https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/blog/cat-and-schnorr-tricks-ii.html
    OP_CAT is sufficent to build vaults in Bitcoin.
    * Replicating CheckSigFromStack  A. Poelstra, "CAT and Schnorr
    Tricks I", 2021,
    https://medium.com/blockstream/cat-and-schnorr-tricks-i-faf1b59bd298
      which would allow the creation of simple covenants and other
    advanced contracts without having to presign spending transactions,
    possibly reducing complexity and the amount of data that needs to be
    stored. Originally shown to work with Schnorr signatures, this result
    has been extended to ECDSA signatures. [6]

    The opcode OP_CAT was available in early versions of Bitcoin. However
    OP_CAT was removed because it enabled the construction of a script for
    which an evaluation could have memory usage exponential in the size of
    the script.
    For instance a script which pushed an 1 Byte value on the stack then
    repeated the opcodes OP_DUP, OP_CAT 40 times would result in a stack
    value whose size was greater than 1 Terabyte. This is no longer an
    issue because tapscript enforces a maximum stack element size of 520
    Bytes.

    ==Specification==

    Implementation

       if (stack.size() < 2)
         return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_INVALID_STACK_OPERATION);
       valtype vch1 = stacktop(-2);
       valtype vch2 = stacktop(-1);

       if (vch1.size() + vch2.size() > MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE)
           return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_INVALID_STACK_OPERATION);

       valtype vch3;
       vch3.reserve(vch1.size() + vch2.size());
       vch3.insert(vch3.end(), vch1.begin(), vch1.end());
       vch3.insert(vch3.end(), vch2.begin(), vch2.end());

       popstack(stack);
       popstack(stack);
       stack.push_back(vch3);

    The value of MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE is 520 Bytes == Reference Implementation == 
[Elements](https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1043) ==References== [1]: R. Pike and B. 
Kernighan, "Program design in the UNIX environment", 1983,https://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf  [2]: P. Wuille, 
"Multisig on steroids using tree signatures", 
2015,https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-July/019233.html  [3]: J. Rubin, "[bitcoin-dev] OP_CAT Makes 
Bitcoin Quantum Secure [was CheckSigFromStack for Arithmetic Values]", 
2021,https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-July/019233.html  [4]: T. Ruffing, A. Kate, D. Schröder, "Liar, 
Liar, Coins on Fire: Penalizing Equivocation by Loss of Bitcoins", 
2015,https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.727.6262&rep=rep1&type=pdf  [5]: M. Moser, I. Eyal, and E. G. 
Sirer, Bitcoin Covenants,http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/MES16.pdf  [6]: R. Linus, "Covenants with CAT and ECDSA", 
2023,https://gist.github.com/RobinLinus/9a69f5552be94d13170ec79bf34d5e85#file-covenants_cat_ecdsa-md  
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org  
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Reply via email to