[BIP-119] language overhaul & cleanup #1792

1. 
   JeremyRubin commented at 10:37 pm on March 16, 2025: contributor
2. JeremyRubin force-pushed on Mar 16, 2025
3. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Mar 16, 2025
4. in bip-0119.mediawiki:421 in f0ebbf9b56 outdated

   424-transactions which create all the inputs directly in this regard.
   425+CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY's design limits script authors to relatively precise template matching. The
   426+structure of CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY template is such that most of the transaction details must be known exactly at the
   427+time of construction, with the exception of the inputs. It is only possible to create outputs with scripts comitted to templates
   428+which are spent in transactions that contain new outputs containing templates a finite number of times before a terminal output
   429+"bottom" is reached.
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 10:47 pm on March 17, 2025:

   Somewhat difficult sentence to parse :)

   ---

   

   JeremyRubin commented at 1:29 pm on March 18, 2025:

   i tried to rewrite this
5. in bip-0119.mediawiki:511 in f0ebbf9b56 outdated

   509-implemented, other covenant systems could make the CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY's functionality redundant.
   510+There are other opcodes that, if implemented, could make the CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY's functionality redundant.
   511 However, given CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY's simple semantics and low on chain cost it's likely that it
   512-would continue to be favored even if redundant with other capabilities.
   513+would continue to be favored even if redundant with other capabilities. Or, in the case of opcodes
   514+such as OP_VAULT, OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY, and OP_TXHASH, OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY is component of currently
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 10:48 pm on March 17, 2025:

   “is component of” seems odd or missing a word or two
6. in bip-0119.mediawiki:514 in f0ebbf9b56 outdated

   516 
   517-More powerful covenants like those proposed by MES16, would also bring some benefits in terms of
   518-improving the ability to adjust for things like fees rather than relying on child-pays-for-parent or
   519-other mechanisms. However, these features come at substantially increased complexity and room for
   520-unintended behavior.
   521+More powerful opcodes like OP_COV proposed in MES16 or OP_TXHASH, would also bring some benefits in terms of
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 10:49 pm on March 17, 2025:

   0More powerful opcodes, like OP_COV proposed in MES16 or OP_TXHASH, would also bring some benefits in terms of
   

7. in bip-0119.mediawiki:543 in f0ebbf9b56 outdated

   543-CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. However such constructions are more complicated to use
   544-than CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, and encumbers additional verification overhead absent
   545-from CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. These types of covenants also bear similar potential
   546-recursion issues to OP_COV which make it unlikely for inclusion in Bitcoin.
   547+CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. However such constructions are more complicated to implement in application
   548+scripts than CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, and encumbers additional verification overhead absent
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 10:50 pm on March 17, 2025:

   IIUC

   0scripts than CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, and encumber additional verification overhead, absent
   

8. 
   jonatack commented at 10:59 pm on March 17, 2025: member

   Seems fine. Might be helpful to mention in the pull description why these changes are made. A few nits, LMK if you want to address them or merge as-is.
9. [BIP-119] language overhaul & cleanup 88c0fb9b5b
10. JeremyRubin force-pushed on Mar 18, 2025
11. 
    jonatack commented at 2:18 pm on March 21, 2025: member

    Thanks for updating!
12. jonatack merged this on Mar 21, 2025
13. jonatack closed this on Mar 21, 2025

    ---

14. JeremyRubin deleted the branch on Mar 21, 2025

Contributors
JeremyRubin jonatack

Labels
Proposed BIP modification