To add to Murch's point, from my experience working with Script in general and trying to estimate the cost of validation of legacy script as part of the consensus cleanup in particular, i think we should refrain from modifying legacy Script and further complicate reasoning about the worst case unless strictly necessary.
Best, Antoine On Friday, November 15th, 2024 at 9:57 AM, Murch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > On 2024-11-14 17:02, Brandon Black wrote: > > > * Should CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY (CSFSV) be added to pre-tapscript > > […] > > My personal thinking in initially including CSFSV in earlier script > > versions was basically that it's compatible with NOP forking, so why not. > > > If there is no compelling use case or concrete benefit, I don’t think "it’s > compatible, why not" is convincing motivation, especially at the cost of a > NOP. > > On 2024-11-14 17:02, Brandon Black wrote: > > > * Should we include CHECKSIGFROMSTACKADD? > > > I feel similar about this. If there is currently no demand for this, and > future demand also seems unlikely, I would prefer a smaller, more focused set > of changes. > > Cheers, > Murch > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/c91269ac-e579-4089-bf9a-fdc076e34727%40murch.one. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/nRFLHRhwXER56TrZy50tJ2HmvipjteXzPfz6mEs_VmyZ5sXDNVUIUniPppSphF5SOVCQmpRZSjmBN8_eIMZEbdFgl3vJn-8XSEmpAFmj5SM%3D%40protonmail.com.
