CHIP 2021-02 Add Native Introspection Opcodes

CHIPs Standards Track
,
#21

I am working on the implementation of this spec. for BCHN and Knuth.
It would be helpful if interested parties could provide test cases with real examples of use of these new op. codes.
Thanks!

1 Like
#22

Hi. I dontā€™ have anything at the moment, but Jason might. I made an issue for it for now: Introspection: test cases (#21) Ā· Issues Ā· GeneralProtocols / Research / CHIPs Ā· GitLab

I will bring it up on the telegram chat and see if thereā€™s anything available.

1 Like
#23

Hey all, I just pushed up a MR with a new revision for the introspection CHIP:

This revision clarifies several technical details and adds an extensive Rationale section documenting design decisions made in the spec.

And hereā€™s the MR. Review and feedback appreciated!

1 Like
#24

Minor suggestion: please add versioning and changelog into the document, it is easier to the readers to follow the changes.

2 Likes
#25

Another suggestion: I would split the spec so it doesnā€™t depend on either PMv3 or Bigger Script Integers

1 Like
#26

Thanks for the review @fpelliccioni! (For others following this thread, there was more discussion on Telegram: Telegram: Contact @transactionintrospection)

These suggestions are both incorporated in v1.1 :+1:

1 Like
#27

@bitjson
I have a small issue with this spec and am requesting the following edit.

The stated used opcodes in the technical section are 0xc0 (192) through 0xcf (207) however 0xce is dependent on PMv3 and 0xcf is never mentioned anywhere else other than that it is included in the spec.

Can you please add a table for reserved op codes under the Unary Operations table to clearly mark 0xce and 0xcf as reserved? They should also be named OP_RESERVED3 and OP_RESERVED4 or some other name of your choosing that clearly indicates they are reserved for this spec.

I feel that the spec is a little unclear that these are reserved op codes without this.

(sorry about the late edit request, i did not notice this until late stages of spec implementation)

#28

@Griffith thanks for the comment! @Jonathan_Silverblood opened an issue with an initial MR. I made some comments here:

Please let us know what you think.