From: Weikeng Chen <weikeng.chen@l2iterative.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [bitcoindev] Multi-byte opcodes
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:45:04 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4235f7d2-8e09-428a-813d-9034cb21f48an@googlegroups.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2096 bytes --]
I think we need a way to allow more opcodes without taking up the rest of
the NOPs.
This is related to a point from Murch
(https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/usHmnXDuJQc/m/hhtvAjSdCgAJ) that
the reasoning of "its' compatible, why not" for adding
CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY/ADD) is not solid because when we add a new
opcode, we usually have to give up a NOP. We do not have many NOPs left.
We can, however, solve that by allowing multi-byte opcodes.
Say, for example, we can have:
OP_OP { 0x1521 }
which will set the current opcode to be the one with the assigned number
0x1521.
Another idea is maybe OP_OP takes a stack element as the opcode.
{ 0x1521 } OP_OP
We can enforce some sort of minimal rule, or not do so, to allow more
flexible use of existing opcodes.
This, of course, runs at a cost as this opcode needs three bytes in total
to represent, but since the existing opcodes already take care of most of
the basic functionalities that we expect users to use very frequently, the
new opcodes that we want to add are likely those that complete something
important and are going to be used only a few times in a script.
Similarly, we can require that multi-byte opcodes that have not been
enabled my result in OP_SUCCESS.
OP_OP is not the best name as it could be confusing. OP_SETOP, OP_NEXT, etc
could be taken into consideration.
The result of this is that we can worry less about whether it is worthy of
a NOP to do an opcode, but focus on if the opcode has enough use cases to
support it.
I feel that someone must have brought this up before (but it is a little
bit hard to find the history in this mailing list at this moment).
What do people think?
Thanks,
Weikeng
--
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 bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/4235f7d2-8e09-428a-813d-9034cb21f48an%40googlegroups.com.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2699 bytes --]
reply other threads:[~2024-11-16 2:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4235f7d2-8e09-428a-813d-9034cb21f48an@googlegroups.com \
--to=weikeng.chen@l2iterative.com \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox