From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4182289E for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:13:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5E71F2 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:13:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id k91so46958552ioi.1 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:13:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8XnYDMqIIaD8DzStUpJpKobZLwN+B0wpvUfR6vzSP7c=; b=awAVKNpJkAmHJgMys+DQCF3Gu9vUXFFGs/Z3nw0GyGoMgDy7VFY13eQUBimgt+bEa9 rbmcbHpT3N/Ciqfo2AA86gNbB539LBZMqFdD1HW+bKNM+YZneusifKYit6lYQu9Czl8u o0ucm7xb6scIf5zOvPwxTICLEqhFHxkDzmN/zvrjFhljj3ebE2nQfN5gUK9jjdc/xl3x OuEsD5B0rb7k3ZnulRCFBaZx7LyOkxyW1T2YExSR9wYWUPA/MOIom4CW8GiHg9bxSZTw gaD7AU1esN7TN2jrgsEvW7WXTJA5QySA/pspYVhfNpVPA/7sbKCtovVpSRvOcJaYxBmN fWdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8XnYDMqIIaD8DzStUpJpKobZLwN+B0wpvUfR6vzSP7c=; b=DGUvLtQRJfCQoHOXLI1ivYF1Ci1ZhNjcuXKwKeF9CfNTvGJOznakOyo4qfcypgj9uS JKKPXU/YkRJf9m6VHyjI1xaRj2sA4i83Tvjnuh1yt76Y06+fsCNg1XqTlUK9jKr6fAyb ne5tlbUuIsZ+aA3O3D7Ii3UOctqpZm+1heE2AlmedoTRhdvUjPQPx3BqC4lw2mV2Qd7t mbkDYP9w9pr/FnZT5cqQgkawVnbtIbjBb2CZiLQh1IfDAYdHfb1Oi72fG0OG3Oy18+Hs c5WHQqEgqFThsrjxhMX+e6O5LhIqgVqcI5jEYthuox4rRaeVzBF72njr4WVCnF0iji/X 4lfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD27IF460SzMk1BD+n8Mc/BUVl8ogvGYKJ2CCyPBL7vHEFuquxT 610deniH/Ni6YB3ticXdJOr0pDmAQg== X-Received: by 10.107.46.32 with SMTP id i32mr11139355ioo.10.1495199584205; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:13:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.3.205 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:13:03 +0200 Message-ID: To: Mark Boldyrev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1136f3d615c2d5054fe04800" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 May 2017 13:57:43 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A proposal to reintroduce the disabled script opcodes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 13:13:05 -0000 --001a1136f3d615c2d5054fe04800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" AFAICT, re-enabling these old OP-codes would require a hardfork. If we had SegWit enabled, we could via a soft fork allocate new OP-codes for the same functionality (by introducing a new version of Script). I believe the Elements alpha project has been experimenting with re-enabling old OP-codes: https://elementsproject.org/elements/opcodes/ 2017-05-19 8:07 GMT+02:00 Mark Boldyrev via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > Back in 2010, there was a bug found in Core which allowed > denial-of-service attacks due to the software crashing on some machines > while executing a script - see CVE-2010-537. > I believe the removed ("disabled") opcodes should be re-introduced along > with a standardized behavior definition. > For example, when execution of an opcode results in an arithmetic error, > such as OP_DIV with a zero divisor, the script should exit and fail. > The string splice opcodes should also check their arguments for > correctness, etc. > > These opcodes would enhance the flexibility of scripts and allow > sophisticated native smart contracts to be created. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a1136f3d615c2d5054fe04800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
AFAICT, re-enabling these old OP-codes would req= uire a hardfork.

If we had SegWit enabled, we could via a soft= fork allocate new OP-codes for the same functionality (by introducing a ne= w version of Script).
I believe the Elements alpha project has bee= n experimenting with re-enabling old OP-codes: https://elementsproject.org/elements/opcodes/=

201= 7-05-19 8:07 GMT+02:00 Mark Boldyrev via bitcoin-dev <= = bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
Back in 201= 0, there was a bug found in Core which allowed denial-of-service attacks du= e to the software crashing on some machines while executing a script - see = CVE-2010-537.
I believe the removed (= "disabled") opcodes should be re-introduced along with a standard= ized behavior definition.
For example,= when execution of an opcode results in an arithmetic error, such as OP_DIV= with a zero divisor, the script should exit and fail.
The string splice opcodes should also check their argument= s for correctness, etc.

These opcodes would enhance the flexibility of = scripts and allow sophisticated native smart contracts to be created.
=

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


--001a1136f3d615c2d5054fe04800--