Good morning Russell,
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 7:42 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> > REMEMBER: `OP_CAT` BY ITSELF DOES NOT ENABLE COVENANTS, WHETHER RECURSIVE
> > OR NOT.
>
>
> I think the state of the art has advanced to the point where we can say
> "OP_CAT in tapscript enables
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 7:42 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> REMEMBER: `OP_CAT` BY ITSELF DOES NOT ENABLE COVENANTS, WHETHER RECURSIVE
> OR NOT.
>
I think the state of the art has advanced to the point where we can say
"OP_CAT in tapscript enables
Hi alicexbt,
As far as I understand things, I believe the whole notion of a MUST_SIGNAL
state is misguided today. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding
something here.
Back when BIP8 was first proposed by Shaolin Fry, we were in a situation
where many existing clients waiting for segwit
> This transaction has 2 inputs: 0.00074 tBTC and 0.00073 tBTC (0.00074 +
> 0.00073 = 0.00147) which is more than output amount 0.001 tBTC
It was created without the second input, see:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5390103.msg59616324#msg59616324
I didn't touch that later, the
Hi vjudeu,
> It can be changed by using different sighashes, for example, it is possible
> to create a "negative fee transaction", where all transaction costs are paid
> by receiver. Using SIGHASH_SINGLE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY with a higher amount
> in outputs than inputs is enough to do that,
Hi Billy,
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with everything andÂ
bip-trinary-version-signaling looks interesting.
> A primary difference from both BIP8 and BIP9 is that this proposal uses
> tri-state version signaling (rather than binary version bits) that can encode
> both active support as
Good morning vjudeu,
> > Looks like `OP_CAT` is not getting enabled until after we are reasonably
> > sure that recursive covenants are not really unsafe.
>
> Maybe we should use OP_SUBSTR instead of OP_CAT. Or even better: OP_SPLIT.
> Then, we could have OP_SPLIT... that would split a
>
> Looks like `OP_CAT` is not getting enabled until after we are reasonably sure
> that recursive covenants are not really unsafe.
Maybe we should use OP_SUBSTR instead of OP_CAT. Or even better: OP_SPLIT.
Then, we could have OP_SPLIT... that would split a
string N times (so there will be
