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

Popular posts from this blog

Crypto Exec Warns Tokenization Is Moving Faster Than Expected

Bitcoin Mining Could Be Strengthening The Ruble, Russian Central Bank Says

Nigerian SEC Partners With Police To Tackle Crypto Ponzi Schemes – Details