BIP443: stack order fixup #1859

1. 
   halseth commented at 10:58 am on May 29, 2025: none

   @bigspider
2. Update bip-0443.mediawiki ace86581b2
3. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on May 29, 2025
4. jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on May 29, 2025
5. in bip-0443.mediawiki:138 in ace86581b2

   134@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ The tapscript opcode <code>OP_SUCCESS187</code> (<code>0xbb</code>) is constrain
   135 <code>OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY</code>.
   136 
   137 When evaluating <code>OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY</code> (<code>OP_SUCCESS187</code>,
   138-<code>0xbb</code>), the expected format of the stack, shown bottom to top, is:
   139+<code>0xbb</code>), the expected format of the stack, shown top to bottom, is:
   

   ---

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 1:54 pm on May 29, 2025:

   @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

   ---

   

   halseth commented at 1:58 pm on May 29, 2025:

   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.

   ---

   

   halseth commented at 1:59 pm on May 29, 2025:

   @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).

   ---

   

   bigspider commented at 3:02 pm on May 29, 2025:

   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.

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 5:50 pm on May 30, 2025:

   @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.
6. jonatack renamed this:
   Update bip-0443.mediawiki
   BIP443: stack order fixup
   on May 29, 2025
7. jonatack removed the label Pending acceptance on May 29, 2025
8. 
   jonatack commented at 8:20 pm on June 2, 2025: member

   Done in #1864 and credited to you (thanks!), so closing here.
9. jonatack closed this on Jun 2, 2025

   ---

Contributors
halseth murchandamus bigspider jonatack

Labels
Proposed BIP modification