Learning-Bitcoin-from-the-Command-Line/10_1_Using_Script_Conditionals.md

10.1: Using Script Conditionals

NOTE: This is a draft in progress, so that I can get some feedback from early reviewers. It is not yet ready for learning.

There's one more aspect of Bitcoin Scripting that's crucial to unlocking its true power: conditionals allow you create various paths of execution.

Understand Verify

You've already seen one conditional in scripts: OP_VERIFY (0x69). It pops the top item on the stack and sees if it's true, and if it's not it ends execution of the script.

Verify is usually incorporated into other opcodes. You've already seen OP_EQUALVERIFY (0xad), OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (0xb1), and OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (0xb2). Each of these opcodes does its core action (equal, checklocktime, or checksequence) and then does a verify afterward. The other verify opcodes that you haven't seen are: OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY (0x9d), OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY (0xad), and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY (0xaf).

So how is verify a conditional? It's the most powerful sort of conditional. Using OP_VERIFY, if a condition is true, the Script continues executing, else the Script exits. This is how you check conditions that are absolutely required for a Script to succeed. For example, the P2PKH script (OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG) has two required conditions: (1) that the supplied public key match the public-key hash; and (2) that the supplied signature match that public key. An OP_EQUALVERIFY is used for the check of the public key and the public-key hash because it's an absolutely required condition. You don't want the script to continue on.

You may notice there's no OP_VERIFY at the end of this (or most any) script, despite the final condition being required as well. That's because Bitcoin effectively does an OP_VERIFY at the very end of each Script, to ensure that the final stack result is true.

Understand If/Then

The other major conditional in Bitcoin Script is the classic OP_IF (0x63) / OP_ELSE (0x67) / OP_ENDIF (0x68). This is typical flow control: if OP_IF detects a true statement, it executes the block under it; otherwise, if there's an OP_ELSE, it executes that; and OP_ENDIF marks the end of the final block.

WARNING: These conditionals are technically opcodes too, but as with small numbers, we're going to leave the OP_ prefix off for brevity and clarity. Thus we'll write IF, ELSE, and ENDIF instead of OP_IF, OP_ELSE, and OP_ENDIF.

Understand If/Then Ordering

There are two big catches to conditionals that can make it a lot harder to read and assess scripts if you're not careful.

First, the IF conditional checks the truth of what's before it (which is to say what's in the stack), not what's after it.

Second, the IF conditional tends to be in the locking script and what it's check tends to be in the unlocking script.

Of course, you might say, that's how Bitcoin Script works. Conditionals use reverse Polish notation and they adopt the standard unlocking/locking paradigm, just like everything else in Bitcoin Scripting.

The problem is that using these standard methodologies for IF/ELSE conditionals confounds are standard way of reading this conditional code. Consider the following code: IF OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> ENDIF OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG .

Year of reading this in prefix notation might lead you to read this as:

IF (OP_DUP) THEN

    OP_HASH160 
    OP_PUSHDATA <pubKeyHashA> 

ELSE 

    OP_DUP 
    OP_HASH160 
    OP_PUSHDATA <pubKeyHashB> 

ENDIF 
 
 OP_EQUALVERIFY 
 OP_CHECKSIG

So, if the OP_DUP is successful, then we get to do the first block, else the second. But that doesn't make any sense! Why wouldn't the OP_DUP succeed.

And, indeed, it doesn't make any sense, because we accidentally read the statement using the wrong notation. The correct reading of this is:

IF 
  
    OP_DUP
    OP_HASH160 
    OP_PUSHDATA <pubKeyHashA> 

ELSE 

    OP_DUP 
    OP_HASH160 
    OP_PUSHDATA <pubKeyHashB> 

ENDIF 
 
 OP_EQUALVERIFY 
 OP_CHECKSIG

The True or False statement is placed on the stack prior to running the IF, then the correct block is run base on that result.

This is intended as a poor man's 1-of-2 multisignature. The owner of <privKeyA> would put <signatureA> <pubKeyA> True in his locking script, while the owner of <privKeyB> would put <signatureB> <pubKeyB> False in her locking script. That trailing True or False tells the script which hash to check against, then the OP_EQUALVERIFY and the OP_CHECKSIG at the end do the real work.

But, we can actually produce a slightly smarter poor-man's multisig that doesn't require the signers to remember if they're True or False, and we're going to do that before we examine more thoroughly how this runs.

Run an If/Then Multisig

The following Script takes the simplicity of a 1-of-2 multisignature and makes it more complex by laying it out as an IF/THEN statement. Because this is fully repetitive, there's not a lot of reason to do it for real, but it's a good building block:

OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL
IF

    OP_CHECKSIG

ELSE

    OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
    
ENDIF

Failing to read this one in reverse Polish notation would be even more confusing, as it'd be easy to think the IF was looking at OP_CHECKSIG ... but then it goes right on to the ELSE.

Run the True Branch

Here's how it actally runs if unlocked with <signatureA> <pubKeyA>:

Script: <signatureA> <pubKeyA> OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ ]

First, we put constants on the stack:

Script: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureA> <pubKeyA> ]

Then we run the first few, obvious commands, OP_DUP and OP_HASH160 and push another constant:

Script: OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureA> <pubKeyA> <pubKeyA> ]

Script: <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureA> <pubKeyA> <pubKeyHashA> ]

Script: OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureA> <pubKeyA> <pubKeyHashA> <pubKeyHashA> ]

Next we run the OP_EQUAL, which is what's going to feed the IF:

Script: IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureA> <pubKeyA> True ]

Now the IF runs, and since there's a True, it only runs the first block, eliminating all the rest:

Script: OP_CHECKSIG
Stack: [ <signatureA> <pubKeyA> ]

And the OP_CHECKSIG will end up True as well:

Script: 
Stack: [ True ]

Run the False Branch

Here's how it actally runs if unlocked with <signatureB> <pubKeyB>:

Script: <signatureB> <pubKeyB> OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ ]

First, we put constants on the stack:

Script: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> ]

Then we run the first few, obvious commands, OP_DUP and OP_HASH160 and push another constant:

Script: OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> <pubKeyB> ]

Script: <pubKeyHashA> OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> <pubKeyHashB> ]

Script: OP_EQUAL IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> <pubKeyHashB> <pubKeyHashA> ]

Next we run the OP_EQUAL, which is what's going to feed the IF:

Script: IF OP_CHECKSIG ELSE OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG ENDIF
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> False ]

Whoop! The result was False because <pubKeyHashB> does not equal <pubKeyHashA>. Now when the IF runs, it collapses down to just the ELSE statement:

Script: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> ]

Afterward, we go through the whole rigamarole again, starting with another OP_DUP, but eventually testing against the other pubKeyHash:

Script: OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> <pubKeyB> ]

Script: <pubKeyHashB> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> <pubKeyHashB> ]

Script: OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> <pubKeyHashB> <pubKeyHashB> ]

Script: OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
Stack: [ <signatureB> <pubKeyB> ]

Script: 
Stack: [ True ]

This probably isn't nearly as efficient as a true Bitcoin multisig, but it's a good example of how results pushed onto the stack by previous tests can be used to feed future conditions. In this case, it's the failure of the first signature which tells the conditional that maybe it should go check the second.

Understand Other Conditionals