segregated witness – Does including OP_1 to scriptSig create a fork between non-segWit and segWit nodes?


In line with this, when the scriptPubKey equals to:

OP_n (with n between 0 and 16, inclusive) adopted by a direct push of precisely 2 to 40 bytes inclusive

… it denotes the beginning of SegWit validating course of. SegWit validation course of embrace the checking whether or not the scriptSig is an empty subject. Whether it is, previous nodes (non-segWit) will mechanically settle for this as a legitimate script since after the “concatenation” (I do know it is not an actual concatenation) the top-most ingredient within the stack can be non-zero, whereas the segWit nodes will go into additional checking.

So, my query is: what’s going to occur if somebody simply add OP_1 in scriptSig? I imply, for non-segWit nodes it will nonetheless be accepted as
a legitimate script since top-most ingredient within the stack is non-zero, and for segWit nodes it should thought of as invalid since scriptSig isn’t an empty subject. Will this make some form of fork? How is that this resolved?

Extra query is what’s going to occur if non-segWit nodes settle for some “segWit” transaction as legitimate since top-most merchandise is non-zero, and segWit then again don’t settle for that transaction since one thing in its witness knowledge isn’t okay? What is occurring on this case, how is that this resolved?

Related Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

0FansLike
3,912FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles