Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DB9C002D for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:23:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2028B60AFC for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:23:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=gmail.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 WyvDSw9J0BjG for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:23:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFDA860670 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id k12so8279770lfr.9 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 05:23:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SgNinMMPcK6vmkI71aCcmcCPlLzSlKqEiw8iVfnvDnE=; b=W6KR8nR4XBm5/67uvLpQoFpQH6tr2YgYfo3sw+mS8e0p5VKv1pKoKooeqDtClv+YON rKArTKelmEKORy6xh5JM0aDDRksmw/CNtv+o1yjrQrAzMqaJYLvYEdTA/WIrlzoRv+L+ 9Dr8VEtpr3gx8ywEkX4oltaePGXSarjXtlRFvqX6vEjayboJfa9rMd2IxlzIUpUJX34Y IuIelWWFCHYMzStqPzXkq5nT4gNasv0FkeW+ZDngWEqIQaeEerEeWwBE0wIqB4VqJSr3 pPImIXv8GomulruHjRkz8HKsOjxLbh/8E+80ZxXqTWX2iImqqvs0W6aK6oemS3GhTCQn 5EZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SgNinMMPcK6vmkI71aCcmcCPlLzSlKqEiw8iVfnvDnE=; b=C+Muuzqjt3MDZR+AytRiK1RNqVD5Ww/EszexmgZzO2XqR0j3Fu32zzaifJLfAm5ozH lGEq7x6p5/nZaWUHAEc3XgSHmrg+v321gR3DwOI9P8jrYzVCcKzIzuu1eGFUP+2RZ33Z jbn0rJuq7wofNCnUDtMDbxXdUG1qaPUTwusXwBMq4cdR6Vd7oH2wagCgQcV/mq49GW86 Ur/Xi59rEoLJNlaQr3k0gruD34vpOPwlWM4A1+BOkugSgBERyuZsZhxR0G/TmCa4WYS6 0s0ZzJ1VEwO0rLhTpBcclJiTpcVLWhfWKXbU92QGhN/ep3G8QJRZvXINR0PBxsPw4dv3 viag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315isgsbPIi2JjmtPKtCW6/9QQHGY/bQrixhWdnbOZc4pBGmUXw pLfLmsyVDda9Dz9ecC8kQxK13aiRwslLmqiMMWG3QtR0Chg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqn4EsGPuMc3ooNC+Fh0WYs37Szg+C97ntYVPH28lTvnM1NzO/+aSPTdJMohR9xYdDAeAD0Qg6nvGua3BKfus= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1112:b0:471:a77b:abe6 with SMTP id l18-20020a056512111200b00471a77babe6mr23841055lfg.262.1651148623566; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 05:23:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220420023107.GA6061@erisian.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20220420023107.GA6061@erisian.com.au> From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 05:23:32 -0700 Message-ID: To: Anthony Towns Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002ddadf05ddb5ffce" Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters 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: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:23:47 -0000 --0000000000002ddadf05ddb5ffce Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sorry I didn't see this snippet fully earlier, but I caught it in Optech (cc harding) > *(I didn't think DROP/1 is necessary here? Doesn't leaving the 32 byte* > *hash on the stack evaluate as true? I guess that means everyone's using**sapio to > construct the txs?)* Not quite: it would mean that everyone is using *sapio-miniscript**, *which may or may not be in Sapio, or they are using a different miniscript implementation that is compatible with sapio-miniscript's CTV fragment (which is sort of the most obvious way to implement it), or they are hand writing the script and are still using that fragment. E.g., you can see https://min.sc/nextc/#gist=001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:2 or https://min.sc/nextc/#gist=001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:0 both of these might "look" like sapio, but are built using minsc. The underlying point might still stand, but using miniscript seems different than using Sapio. --0000000000002ddadf05ddb5ffce Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry I didn'= t see this snippet fully earlier, but I caught it in Optech (cc harding)

(I didn't think DROP/1 is n= ecessary here? Doesn't leaving the 32 byte
hash on the stack = evaluate as true? I guess that means everyone's using
= sapio=C2=A0to construct the txs?)
Not qui= te: it would mean that everyone is using sapio-miniscript, which may or may not be in Sapio, or they are using a diffe= rent miniscript implementation that is compatible with sapio-miniscript'= ;s CTV fragment (which is sort of the most obvious way to implement it), or= they are hand writing the script and are still using that fragment.=

E.g., you can see=C2=A0https://min.sc/nextc/#gis= t=3D001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:2 or=C2=A0https://min.sc/nextc/#g= ist=3D001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:0=C2=A0both of these might &= quot;look" like sapio, but are built using minsc.

The unde= rlying point might still stand, but using miniscript seems different than u= sing Sapio.

--0000000000002ddadf05ddb5ffce--