Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54786C000B for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4372560E4B for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:47:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t1x2GbOjavY7 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:47:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4319.protonmail.ch (mail-4319.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.19]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95B4B607F6 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:47:33 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1647967656; bh=7bRuSECwVKRpsrJVL0TdDNXuosIIJ6c9jU9X7D9LQl0=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=LCuKlYDhzCxc8tJ3PhH0nbTzbp47yDffL/zSAoa715cDKxUGZV6PmBk6zD3BcYJLl 8xNrtU9rL2FbEe0eIO4ujx9g5jb4GHEpkpzHvUxiSxA+TS6m+uUGtIRKmdZHjYzMvf Si/gzyvmSIxCfuuLzK1xfgwpLt3Z0u3GD0ToindYCPloegoViL7UdI061lUwZBET0J QG+tsE8EaUAJWocVvhkQmPh6nSOHZYEXxjozNlzQxwG4LsXMjBCUh9ciHowiWKeXqK r1eI20EbpFUSw52kT8gnX4Kxaqjx/jKy0BIUSO8Q1IkIUK+BB1rkqZ0XuKCeGUDHoG r03TkSJmpYMtA== To: Russell O'Connor From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Beyond Jets: Microcode: Consensus-Critical Jets Without Softforks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:47:39 -0000 Good morning again Russell, > Good morning Russell, > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > You don't think referring to the microcode via its hash, effectively us= ing 32-byte encoding of opcodes, is still rather long winded? For that matter, since an entire microcode represents a language (based on = the current OG Bitcoin SCRIPT language), with a little more coordination, w= e could entirely replace Tapscript versions --- every Tapscript version is = a slot for a microcode, and the current OG Bitcoin SCRIPT is just the one i= n slot `0xc2`. Filled slots cannot be changed, but new microcodes can use some currently-e= mpty Tapscript version slot, and have it properly defined in a microcode in= troduction outpoint. Then indication of a microcode would take only one byte, that is already ne= eded currently anyway. That does limit us to only 255 new microcodes, thus the cost of one microco= de would have to be a good bit higher. Again, remember, microcodes represent an entire language that is an extensi= on of OG Bitcoin SCRIPT, not individual operations in that language. Regards, ZmnSCPxj