<p>Currently, there exist a number of operational codes (opcodes) within the bitcoin protocol that have been disabled for security reasons. These script functions of the bitcoin protocol were taken out of operation in earlier versions because it was thought that there may be a bug in their implementation (OP_LSHIFT).</p>
<p>Although some believe that there is no reason to reactive or experiment with these opcodes, I beg to differ. These opcodes could potentially introduce value-added features to bitcoin and enhance functionality of the network. Therefore, I am wondering if there is a more efficient method of reactivating these operational codes (experimentally only at this point) than by <strong>introducing a hard fork at the protocol level</strong> ...</p>
<p>As bitcoin developers, it is important that we research and experiment with all possible solutions for not only scaling network capacity, but introducing new functionality.</p>
<p>What arguements exist in favour of reactivating these opcodes? Arguements against?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-28T10:19:15.150Z
SegWit makes it easier to add new opcodes ([more here](https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#script-versioning)) but I don't know it well so I can't write an answer.
MCCCS
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-28T13:11:13.447Z
For someone proposing an action, usually they would have some justification for why any opcode should be “reactivated”.
Claris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-29T11:29:24.157Z
*"Most energy-efficient way"* is a strange way to frame this question, energy efficiency isn't really a concern in opcode activation
chytrik
<bitcoin-core><bitcoind><bitcoin-core-development><blockchain-fork><project-fork>
Most Energy-Efficient Way To Reactivate Disabled Operational Codes (Opcodes)?
Travis Patron
# Most Energy-Efficient Way To Reactivate Disabled Operational Codes (Opcodes)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-12-28)

Currently, there exist a number of operational codes (opcodes) within the bitcoin protocol that have been disabled for security reasons. These script functions of the bitcoin protocol were taken out of operation in earlier versions because it was thought that there may be a bug in their implementation (OP\_LSHIFT).

Although some believe that there is no reason to reactive or experiment with these opcodes, I beg to differ. These opcodes could potentially introduce value-added features to bitcoin and enhance functionality of the network. Therefore, I am wondering if there is a more efficient method of reactivating these operational codes (experimentally only at this point) than by **introducing a hard fork at the protocol level** ...

As bitcoin developers, it is important that we research and experiment with all possible solutions for not only scaling network capacity, but introducing new functionality.

What arguements exist in favour of reactivating these opcodes? Arguements against?

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, bitcoind, bitcoin-core-development, blockchain-fork, project-fork

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: SegWit makes it easier to add new opcodes ([more here](https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#script-versioning)) but I don't know it well so I can't write an answer.  
> **username_2**: For someone proposing an action, usually they would have some justification for why any opcode should be “reactivated”.  
> **username_3**: *"Most energy-efficient way"* is a strange way to frame this question, energy efficiency isn't really a concern in opcode activation  

---

## 0 answers

