BIP443: stack order fixup #1859
Conversation
jonatack
added
Proposed BIP modification
Pending acceptance
| @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ The tapscript opcode <code>OP_SUCCESS187</code> (<code>0xbb</code>) is constrain | |||
| <code>OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY</code>. | |||
|
|
|||
| When evaluating <code>OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY</code> (<code>OP_SUCCESS187</code>, | |||
| <code>0xbb</code>), the expected format of the stack, shown bottom to top, is: | |||
| <code>0xbb</code>), the expected format of the stack, shown top to bottom, is: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@halseth: Are you surprised that the order used to present the stack is top to bottom, or did you notice a mismatch between the description and the spec?
If it’s the former, the presentation of stacks bottom to top seems to be the established order, see e.g., https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, that might well be it, in such a case the order of the elements in the code block should be reversed.
I'll let @bigspider comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@murchandamus to answer your question, I believe it is a mismatch between the wording and the order of elements (mode should be the top element).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @halseth - indeed it appears I messed up, as <mode> is the top element (it would basically always be pushed right before CCV, and never come from the witness - as in the Script examples below).
I think my confusion comes from looking at the description in BIP-0345 where the arguments are presented indeed presented top to bottom.
I'll let @murchandamus advise whether this PR should be merged, or the order of the parameters should be reversed to actually be bottom to top - I don't have strong feelings either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@halseth: Sorry, I think I wasn’t fully awake when I commented yesterday, I meant "surprised that it is not top to bottom". But either way, I think the established order is bottom to top (if it is written in one line), and I would then suggest to adjust the order of the elements to match that.
jonatack
removed
the
Pending acceptance
|
Done in #1864 and credited to you (thanks!), so closing here. |
@bigspider