From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
In-Reply-To: <1060084086.55457.1472729991439@privateemail.com>
References: <1736097121.90204.1471369988809@privateemail.com>
	<1060084086.55457.1472729991439@privateemail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 11:02:19 +0930
Message-ID: <871t0z8730.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with OP_IF and OP_NOTIF
	malleability in P2WSH
Precedence: list

Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> Restriction for segwit OP_IF argument as a policy has got a few concept ACK. I would like to have more people to ACK or NACK, especially the real users of OP_IF. I think Lightning network would use that at lot.

My current scripts use OP_IF and OP_NOTIF only after OP_EQUAL, except
for one place where they use OP_EQUAL ... OP_EQUAL... OP_ADD OP_IF
(where the two OP_EQUALs are comparing against different hashes, so only
0 or 1 of the two OP_EQUAL can return 1).

So there's no effect either way on the c-lightning implementation, at
least.

Thanks!
Rusty.