arno/bitcoinbook
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook synced 2025-05-31 13:18:50 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

CH07: Remove claim about VERIFY opcodes that doesn't apply to CLTV/CSV

Browse Source 
Previous text claimed VERIFY opcodes consumed their inputs, but that's
not the case for upgraded OP_NOP opcodes.
This commit is contained in:
David A. Harding 2023-03-16 09:16:55 -10:00
parent 5ea4e4ef03
commit 50795e578f
1 changed files with 0 additions and 10 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
chapters/authorization-authentication.adoc
View File

@ -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 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+ 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 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. (flow control), then we need an +OP_IF...OP_ELSE+ flow control clause.
==== Using Flow Control in Scripts ==== Using Flow Control in Scripts