rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-05-07 📝 Original message:On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 5:52 AM <vjudeu at gazeta.pl> wrote: > > Re-enabling OP_CAT with the exact same OP would be a hardfork, but > creating a new OP_CAT2 that does the same would be a softfork. > > We have TapScript for that. OP_CAT is defined as OP_SUCCESS, it can be > re-enabled in a soft-fork way. For now, OP_CAT in TapScript simply means > "anyone can move those coins", so adding some restrictions is all we need > to re-enable this opcode. Introducing OP_CAT2 is not needed at all, unless > it will be totally different, but then it should not be named as OP_CAT2, > but rather as OP_SOMETHING_ELSE, it depends how different it will be from > OP_CAT. > Oh, well, I didn't know any of that. I guess it could be a modification of OP_SUCCESS if it makes sense instead of a new opcode. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220507/6b3c1b24/attachment.html>