OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY and its amount semantic

[AntoineP]

Nice, good to see more practical exploration on this.

@halseth

With this approach you would reduce the CCV opcode to just do “annex assertion” not really caring what the annex means. I believe that would make it easier to add more meaning to the annex at a later point (via a soft fork) and immediately have it available for assertion by CCV without touching the script engine.

I think my preference would be to separate concerns entirely and have an opcode that does the assertion. OP_CHECKAMOUNT? Then CCV can take care of the scripts.