On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 07:13:53AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: > Note that with OP_DEPTH we can remove the small chance of the payee > vanishing and putting the funds in limbo: > > <height + n> OP_DEPTH OP_LESSTHAN > IF 2 PK1 PK2 CHECKMULTISIG > ELSE PK1 CHECKSIG > ENDIF > > Though that shows how to implement OP_DEPTH as a true soft-fork we're > probably best off doing it as part of a script v2 using the soft-fork > mechanism I outlined before when talking about fidelity-bonded ledgers. > (best to do MAST (merklized abstract syntax tree) support at the same > time)
jl2012 pointed out we already have an OP_DEPTH instruction that returns
the number of items on the stack. In the future we should use the terms
OP_BLOCKHEIGHT, OP_TXOUTHEIGHT, OP_TXOUTDEPTH to talk about hypothetical
instructions that put the block height, confirmed txout height, and
confirmed txout depth on the stack. Thus the above example would now be:
<height + n> BLOCKDEPTH LESSTHAN
IF 2 <pk-payor> <pk-payee> CHECKMULTISIG
ELSE <pk-payor> CHECKSIG
ENDIF
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000013030f49fe3eed5e7f9388c4ecc237b7a847ca93255836bc3b
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
