FabioCarpi (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 12, 2015, 02:41:59 PM |
|
im making a script execution routine in my program for the multisig sig (ex: https://blockchain.info/pt/tx-index/70071473), have a OP_FALSE in the beginning in the manual ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script), says the OP_FALSE put a blank value in the stack... in my test, i got this array (size=5) 0 => string '' (length=0) 1 => string '3045022015bd388f4be0da8fec78920d4651dc9da4a38efc97c2c956e1e5ccacec9d8d5d022100d69519f5362dedf2c7175693f001b1d253255a91068ce6561c57b366eb9e8adf01' (length=144) 2 => string '304502207f0fdb0c5ff38c1237e31c9f96fd89461280cc9d3cc01eb954c8e7d8600a0926022100e55357b75648867503ae7d7a19e3a28adea46ba7f0f6b222db2fa01b8618c2c201' (length=144) 3 => string '522102138eb535f6ea4aaf6898cacb7ddca70d82d85cc84e0a69ae08158f0fc066b0d92102d1e6d254e0a396c9f25e3bc2a4a98f68e7911a938e4b1608d53232e67ca7e4bd52ae' (length=142) 4 => boolean true Its correct? And this op_false is for what?
|
|
|
|
|
FabioCarpi (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 12, 2015, 10:41:19 PM |
|
great site thanks a lot
|
|
|
|
doof
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 12, 2015, 11:03:08 PM |
|
great site thanks a lot
Agreed. Will book mark this one.
|
|
|
|
|
readerbtc
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 13, 2015, 07:24:12 PM |
|
No, this bug should not be fixed ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Why not? Sure, it would be a hard fork, but couldn't clients consider block height when executing opcodes and behave accordingly?
|
|
|
|
amaclin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 13, 2015, 07:47:50 PM |
|
Why not? Sure, it would be a hard fork, but couldn't clients consider block height when executing opcodes and behave accordingly?
Do you want to upgrade all clients in the world? ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Tell me how to do it ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
readerbtc
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2015, 01:36:35 AM |
|
Won't they be upgraded, soon or later? I mean, hard forks will happen.
|
|
|
|
Saitteld
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2015, 12:03:38 PM |
|
Either way Bitcoin is an interesting piece of software that needs to not only be backwards-compatible but forwards-compatible too. Hard fork problem stems from old, not upgraded clients, they'd use the old logic and we can't ignore them. Just like amaclin said it's not upgrading most of the clients, it's upgrading all of them. And yes, in ideal world everyone would update and the bug would be fixed. But Bitcoin client does not have a spec so basically the Bitcoin Core code is the spec. Looking from this perspective maybe we shouldn't call this a "bug"? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) By the way there are more interesting ... issues like that, see SIGHASH_SINGLE behavior when the number of inputs != number of outputs ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG#Procedure_for_Hashtype_SIGHASH_SINGLE ).
|
|
|
|
amaclin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2015, 12:38:10 PM |
|
Looking from this perspective maybe we shouldn't call this a "bug"? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) This is bug. Definitely a bug. The insect that we did not want to be here. But this is a bug in a consensus code. So, this is a bug in an amber https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Amber2.jpg
|
|
|
|
readerbtc
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 15, 2015, 12:39:05 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 8662
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 15, 2015, 04:12:23 AM |
|
That checkmultisig reads an extra element could be used in the future to make batch validation faster (as it needs some additional side information), or for other extensions. It's commonly assumed to be a bug that it reads an extra item but might have just as well been another forward compatibility mechanism, or a left over behavior from an earlier approach.
|
|
|
|
readerbtc
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 1
|
That checkmultisig reads an extra element could be used in the future to make batch validation faster (as it needs some additional side information), or for other extensions. It's commonly assumed to be a bug that it reads an extra item but might have just as well been another forward compatibility mechanism, or a left over behavior from an earlier approach.
I like bitcoin because it screws my notions of what is software.
|
|
|
|
|