OP_SUCCESS188
is 0xbc
, not 0xbb
.
OP_SUCCESS188
is 0xbc
, not 0xbb
.
`OP_SUCCESS188` is `0xbc`, not `0xbb`.
OP_SUCCESS188
is constrained with new rules in this BIP to implement OP_VAULT_RECOVER
and 188 is 0xbc
.
I was wondering whether it was obvious whether OP_SUCCESS187
was meant and 0xbb
was correct, or whether OP_SUCCESS188
was correct and 0xbc
was the typo.
As the line corrected in this PR follows another prior mention that introduces the two new opcodes, and the introductions of the paragraphs repeat except in the opcode name, it seems clear that the lower mention is a copy error from the previous header, and I agree that that this is correct.
The tapscript opcodes OP_SUCCESS187 (0xbb) and OP_SUCCESS188 (0xbc) are constrained with new rules to implement OP_VAULT and OP_VAULT_RECOVER, respectively.
The reference implementation also confirms this interpretation:
Merging.
shesek
jonatack
Scutua
murchandamus
Labels
Bug fix