Was the OP_SUCCESSx reservation in BIP-342 designed with specific opcode families in mind, or as a generic forward-compatibility mechanism?
In Pieter Wuille's recent answer [Why did BIP-342 replace CHECKMULTISIG with a new opcode], BIP-342's deliberate minimization of semantic changes was attributed to the expectation that "those could always be introduced with later softforks that redefine OP_SUCCESSes."
I'm curious about the granularity of this reservation:
- Were specific opcode candidates (e.g., CHECKSIGFROMSTACK, CAT, TXHASH) already on the radar when OP_SUCCESS positions were allocated, or was the allocation purely abstract — "reserve space for unknown future use"?
- Was there discussion about classes of additions (introspection opcodes, signature variants, hash operations) that would or wouldn't be appropriate candidates for OP_SUCCESS redefinition vs. requiring a deeper softfork?
- Are there design properties an opcode SHOULD have to be a clean OP_SUCCESS redefinition (vs. requiring more invasive consensus changes)?
I ask because the activation-path mechanics matter for how community discussions about future opcodes should be framed: is the conversation "which opcode" or also "which opcode reservation slot."
from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/6czOBk8
via IFTTT