# 64 bit arithmetic soft fork

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/64-bit-arithmetic-soft-fork/397>\
**Category:** Protocol Design\
**Tags:** softfork\
**Created:** [January 10, 2024, 3:36pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/64-bit-arithmetic-soft-fork/397 "2024-01-10T15:36:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 21

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dgpv](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/dgpv/32/75_2.png) [@dgpv](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/dgpv)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2024, 2:37pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/64-bit-arithmetic-soft-fork/397/21 "2024-01-13T14:37:46Z")

</div>

On the second thought, maybe checking for overflows after each 64-bit arithmetic opcode is not that great, if we can have computations in (practically) arbitrary width integers and then only detect overflows on conversion to LE64/LE32.

(but really, adding VERIFY after each 64-bit arith op does not add any mental load - it just increases script size a bit)

(well, forgetting VERIFY after 64-bit arith op in Elements might lead to unexpected behavior in case of actual overflow…)

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/64-bit-arithmetic-soft-fork/397)._