mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook
synced 2025-01-11 08:10:54 +00:00
CH07: Remove claim about VERIFY opcodes that doesn't apply to CLTV/CSV
Previous text claimed VERIFY opcodes consumed their inputs, but that's not the case for upgraded OP_NOP opcodes.
This commit is contained in:
parent
5ea4e4ef03
commit
50795e578f
@ -1111,16 +1111,6 @@ The script with +OP_IF+ does the same thing as using an opcode with a
|
||||
So, when do we use +VERIFY+ and when do we use +OP_IF+? If all we are
|
||||
trying to do is to attach a precondition (guard clause), then +VERIFY+
|
||||
is better. If, however, we want to have more than one execution path
|
||||
|
||||
[TIP]
|
||||
====
|
||||
((("EQUAL opcode")))((("opcodes", "EQUAL")))((("EQUALVERIFY
|
||||
opcode")))((("opcodes", "EQUALVERIFY")))An opcode such as +EQUAL+ will
|
||||
push the result (+TRUE+/+FALSE+) onto the stack, leaving it there for
|
||||
evaluation by subsequent opcodes. In contrast, the opcode +EQUALVERIFY+
|
||||
suffix does not leave anything on the stack. Opcodes that end in
|
||||
+VERIFY+ do not leave the result on the stack.
|
||||
====
|
||||
(flow control), then we need an +OP_IF...OP_ELSE+ flow control clause.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Using Flow Control in Scripts
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user