Talk:Script - Revision history

Fresheneesz at 19:10, 18 April 2021

2021-04-18T19:10:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 18 April 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:

	The commands OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY, OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY, OP_VERIFY, OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY shows a boolean output on the table of this page, however the output is Nothing. Is that correct? --[[User:Thelink2012\|Thelink2012]] ([[User talk:Thelink2012\|talk]]) 16:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)		The commands OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY, OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY, OP_VERIFY, OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY shows a boolean output on the table of this page, however the output is Nothing. Is that correct? --[[User:Thelink2012\|Thelink2012]] ([[User talk:Thelink2012\|talk]]) 16:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

			== Order of inputs and outputs is not explained ==

			The way the inputs and outputs are listed isn't intuitive and isn't explained on this page. For example, for OP_SUB, it shows inputs as "x1 x2 x3" and outputs as "x2 x3 x1". I would have expected that x1 would indicate the top of the stack, but instead it seems to indicate the first item pushed onto the stack (and therefore, the bottom of the stack). The outputs are described in the same way, which is even more unintuitive, since the outputs aren't pushed onto the stack individually but are just moved around. So the way to understand the way its written here is that the outputs are as if they were pushed in the order given (or to just understand that the top of the stack is the last item listed).

			I think we should reverse this so that the top of the stack is listed first. It would be a lot more intuitive I think. Alternatively, we can change the notation so that "x1" indicates the top of the stack, then writing "x3 x2 x1" would be easier to read intuitively either way - ie you clearly see the order they're pushed, but you can also look at the numbers to check their position on the stack. This could also be reversed so "x3 x2 x1" means that x3 is on the top of the stack (but was pushed third).

			Thoughts?

			Also it looks like OP_PICK and OP_ROLL are writing these values in a way that's not consistent with the rest of the page. Eg ROLL has inputs "xn ... x2 x1 x0 <n>". It looks like its using 0-based indexes instead of the 1-based indexes the rest of the page uses, and it isn't numbering the xs in order of being pushed. But then again, this is a case where using this notation is useful - and I think it might make sense to change the rest of the page to using this convention.

			[[User:Fresheneesz\|Fresheneesz]] ([[User talk:Fresheneesz\|talk]]) 19:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thelink2012: /* OP_xVERIFY output is Nothing */ new section

2015-11-15T16:57:46Z

OP_xVERIFY output is Nothing: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 15 November 2015
Line 30:		Line 30:
	It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)		It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
	: I think that often when people talk about "Turing completeness", they mean that any program written in a normal programming language can ~always be compiled into any "Turing complete" language, even though this isn't really the definition of Turing completeness. You can write a program in C to calculate pi to the n<sup>th</sup> digit, and even if you were using regular C integers n could be pretty large without needing to modify the program. But the equivalent Script program would need to increase in size every time you increase the maximum size of n by 1, and this is what makes Script much weaker than C or any other normal programming language. [[User:Theymos\|theymos]] ([[User talk:Theymos\|talk]]) 18:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)		: I think that often when people talk about "Turing completeness", they mean that any program written in a normal programming language can ~always be compiled into any "Turing complete" language, even though this isn't really the definition of Turing completeness. You can write a program in C to calculate pi to the n<sup>th</sup> digit, and even if you were using regular C integers n could be pretty large without needing to modify the program. But the equivalent Script program would need to increase in size every time you increase the maximum size of n by 1, and this is what makes Script much weaker than C or any other normal programming language. [[User:Theymos\|theymos]] ([[User talk:Theymos\|talk]]) 18:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

			== OP_xVERIFY output is Nothing ==

			The commands OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY, OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY, OP_VERIFY, OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY shows a boolean output on the table of this page, however the output is Nothing. Is that correct? --[[User:Thelink2012\|Thelink2012]] ([[User talk:Thelink2012\|talk]]) 16:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Taras at 22:27, 7 July 2015

2015-07-07T22:27:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 7 July 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject\|Protocol\|quality=QNR\|importance=TOP}}
	xOP_IFDUP 115 0x73 x x / x x If the input is true or false, duplicate it.		xOP_IFDUP 115 0x73 x x / x x If the input is true or false, duplicate it.

Theymos: /* Common confusion on Turing-completeness. */

2015-03-28T18:32:48Z

Common confusion on Turing-completeness.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 28 March 2015
Line 28:		Line 28:

	It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)		It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
			: I think that often when people talk about "Turing completeness", they mean that any program written in a normal programming language can ~always be compiled into any "Turing complete" language, even though this isn't really the definition of Turing completeness. You can write a program in C to calculate pi to the n<sup>th</sup> digit, and even if you were using regular C integers n could be pretty large without needing to modify the program. But the equivalent Script program would need to increase in size every time you increase the maximum size of n by 1, and this is what makes Script much weaker than C or any other normal programming language. [[User:Theymos\|theymos]] ([[User talk:Theymos\|talk]]) 18:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gmaxwell at 06:59, 28 March 2015

2015-03-28T06:59:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:59, 28 March 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	But by the precise definition a conventional desktop computer is also not "turing-complete": there are functions a universal turing machine can compute that a desktop cannot because the desktop computer runs out of memory first.		But by the precise definition a conventional desktop computer is also not "turing-complete": there are functions a universal turing machine can compute that a desktop cannot because the desktop computer runs out of memory first.

	The precise definition isn't terribly useful for most people, since it excludes most things we think of as computers. Many people read the "not Turing-complete" as a statement that Script is only as expressive as a regular language or ~~some kind~~ only ~~capabile~~ of expressing monotone functions or something like that. Not so, if you ignore the time/memory bounds script is technically universal for computation. Consider the fragment "2 OP_PICK OP_IF OP_SWAP OP_ENDIF": This implements a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredkin_gate fredkin gate] which is universal and could just be wired up and repeated up to the operation limit Q.E.D.		The precise definition isn't terribly useful for most people, since it excludes most things we think of as computers. Many people read the "not Turing-complete" as a statement that Script is only as expressive as a regular language or only capable of expressing monotone functions or something like that. Not so, if you ignore the time/memory bounds script is technically universal for computation. Consider the fragment "2 OP_PICK OP_IF OP_SWAP OP_ENDIF": This implements a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredkin_gate fredkin gate] which is universal and could just be wired up and repeated up to the operation limit Q.E.D.

	It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)		It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gmaxwell at 05:53, 28 March 2015

2015-03-28T05:53:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 28 March 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	But by the precise definition a conventional desktop computer is also not "turing-complete": there are functions a universal turing machine can compute that a desktop cannot because the desktop computer runs out of memory first.		But by the precise definition a conventional desktop computer is also not "turing-complete": there are functions a universal turing machine can compute that a desktop cannot because the desktop computer runs out of memory first.

	The precise definition isn't terribly useful for most people, since it excludes most things we think of as computers. Many people read the "not Turing-complete" as a statement that Script is only as expressive as a regular language or some kind only capabile of expressing monotone functions or something like that. Not so, if you ignore the time/memory bounds script is technically universal for computation. Consider the fragment "2 OP_PICK OP_IF OP_SWAP OP_ENDIF": This implements a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredkin_gate fredkin gate] which is universal Q.E.D.		The precise definition isn't terribly useful for most people, since it excludes most things we think of as computers. Many people read the "not Turing-complete" as a statement that Script is only as expressive as a regular language or some kind only capabile of expressing monotone functions or something like that. Not so, if you ignore the time/memory bounds script is technically universal for computation. Consider the fragment "2 OP_PICK OP_IF OP_SWAP OP_ENDIF": This implements a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredkin_gate fredkin gate] which is universal and could just be wired up and repeated up to the operation limit Q.E.D.

	It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)		It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gmaxwell: fix link

2015-03-28T05:48:17Z

fix link

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 28 March 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	But by the precise definition a conventional desktop computer is also not "turing-complete": there are functions a universal turing machine can compute that a desktop cannot because the desktop computer runs out of memory first.		But by the precise definition a conventional desktop computer is also not "turing-complete": there are functions a universal turing machine can compute that a desktop cannot because the desktop computer runs out of memory first.

	The precise definition isn't terribly useful for most people, since it excludes most things we think of as computers. Many people read the "not Turing-complete" as a statement that Script is only as expressive as a regular language or some kind only capabile of expressing monotone functions or something like that. Not so, if you ignore the time/memory bounds script is technically universal for computation. Consider the fragment "2 OP_PICK OP_IF OP_SWAP OP_ENDIF": This implements a [[w:fredkin gate]] which is universal Q.E.D.		The precise definition isn't terribly useful for most people, since it excludes most things we think of as computers. Many people read the "not Turing-complete" as a statement that Script is only as expressive as a regular language or some kind only capabile of expressing monotone functions or something like that. Not so, if you ignore the time/memory bounds script is technically universal for computation. Consider the fragment "2 OP_PICK OP_IF OP_SWAP OP_ENDIF": This implements a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredkin_gate fredkin gate] which is universal Q.E.D.

	It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)		It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gmaxwell: /* Common confusion on Turing-completeness. */ new section

2015-03-28T05:47:36Z

Common confusion on Turing-completeness.: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 28 March 2015
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:norill: Fixed wording for OP_RETURN; it is mining fee in the example because the output value is zero, not 0.125BTC as I think you thought. Sorry about that.		:norill: Fixed wording for OP_RETURN; it is mining fee in the example because the output value is zero, not 0.125BTC as I think you thought. Sorry about that.
	:[[User:Petertodd\|Peter Todd]] ([[User talk:Petertodd\|talk]]) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (GMT)		:[[User:Petertodd\|Peter Todd]] ([[User talk:Petertodd\|talk]]) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (GMT)

			== Common confusion on Turing-completeness. ==

			Script isn't turing-complete under the precise definition of the term because it executes with bounded time and memory.

			But by the precise definition a conventional desktop computer is also not "turing-complete": there are functions a universal turing machine can compute that a desktop cannot because the desktop computer runs out of memory first.

			The precise definition isn't terribly useful for most people, since it excludes most things we think of as computers. Many people read the "not Turing-complete" as a statement that Script is only as expressive as a regular language or some kind only capabile of expressing monotone functions or something like that. Not so, if you ignore the time/memory bounds script is technically universal for computation. Consider the fragment "2 OP_PICK OP_IF OP_SWAP OP_ENDIF": This implements a [[w:fredkin gate]] which is universal Q.E.D.

			It's absolutely important for the Bitcoin system that script's execution has an quickly checkable, bounded, and very short runtime. The relevance of turing completeness to any of that is easily and often overstated. The greater limits of script's expressiveness come from the computation bound, not the computational model. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gmaxwell: /* Provably Unspendable/Prunable Outputs */ also fix spelling for peter. :)

2013-07-23T04:16:28Z

Provably Unspendable/Prunable Outputs: also fix spelling for peter. :)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 23 July 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	If im not mistaken this kind of transaction would not result in donating the output to the miner. It would instead make the output unusable by anyone forever. In my opinion the best and easiest way to donate to miner is just transfer BTC between your own addresses and set a high fee. [[User:Norill\|Norill]] ([[User talk:Norill\|talk]]) 22:32, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		If im not mistaken this kind of transaction would not result in donating the output to the miner. It would instead make the output unusable by anyone forever. In my opinion the best and easiest way to donate to miner is just transfer BTC between your own addresses and set a high fee. [[User:Norill\|Norill]] ([[User talk:Norill\|talk]]) 22:32, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

	:~~normill~~: Fixed wording for OP_RETURN; it is mining fee in the example because the output value is zero, not 0.125BTC as I think you thought. Sorry about that.		:norill: Fixed wording for OP_RETURN; it is mining fee in the example because the output value is zero, not 0.125BTC as I think you thought. Sorry about that.
	:[[User:Petertodd\|Peter Todd]] ([[User talk:Petertodd\|talk]]) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (GMT)		:[[User:Petertodd\|Peter Todd]] ([[User talk:Petertodd\|talk]]) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (GMT)

Gmaxwell: oops

2013-07-23T04:15:45Z

oops

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:15, 23 July 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:

	:normill: Fixed wording for OP_RETURN; it is mining fee in the example because the output value is zero, not 0.125BTC as I think you thought. Sorry about that.		:normill: Fixed wording for OP_RETURN; it is mining fee in the example because the output value is zero, not 0.125BTC as I think you thought. Sorry about that.
	[[User:Petertodd\|Peter Todd]] ([[User talk:Petertodd\|talk]]) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (GMT)		:[[User:Petertodd\|Peter Todd]] ([[User talk:Petertodd\|talk]]) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (GMT)