Specify extension to bip69 #60
Conversation
readme.md
Outdated
| As with the existing algorithm, the additional fields are ordered for sorting efficiency: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Output value – ascending | ||
| 2. locking bytecode – sorted lexicographically, ascending, short-to-long (e.g. `0x51` < `0x5161`) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well it's not necessary to say short-to-long since this is what lexicographical sort implies -- however if you do that and use an example, it's best to clarify that the first and foremost criterion is not length, but rather byte content. Only when there is a "tie" and 1 string is a prefix of another, the shorter prefix string sorts smaller.
I point this out because bitcoin core specified BIP69 as being exactly lex sort here.. but they implemented it incorrectly (they used length as the "winning" criterion, and only on ties of length do they examine bytes..).
Anyway I would add here:
| 2. locking bytecode – sorted lexicographically, ascending, short-to-long (e.g. `0x51` < `0x5161`) | |
| 2. locking bytecode – sorted lexicographically, ascending, prefixes sort less than longer strings with the same prefix (e.g. `0x51` < `0x5161` but `0x61` > `0x5161`) |
|
Looks good to me. Agree about the BIP69 sort order, but I had a nit comment regarding the lex example (so as to clarify it precisely and avoid the bug core had here). |
|
Ah, thanks! Clarified 👍 Good to merge this? |
|
Yes! You have my approval. |
Fixes #51