<p>BIP 342 does not add any of these opcodes, and it is not possible to perform elliptic curve operations in it.</p>
<p>The only new/changed opcode semantics in BIP342 are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Schnorr signatures instead of ECDSA.</li>
<li>OP_CHECKSIGADD instead of OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY).</li>
<li>OP_SUCCESSx opcodes for future extensibility</li>
<li>Unknown pubkey types for future extensibility.</li>
<li>Changes in resource accounting/limits.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-06T23:14:14.583Z
Got it. One or more OP_SUCCESSx opcodes could potentially function as OP_MOD, OP_DIV, OP_MUL in a future soft fork right?
Brqoo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-06T23:16:55.550Z
Yes, potentially.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-06T22:59:43.067Z
2020-11-06T22:59:43.067Z
Pieter Wuille
<p>Hence BIP 342 proposes to enable opcodes like OP_MOD, OP_DIV, OP_MUL is it possible to perform advanced math operations like EC point addition/multiplication in a script size of up to 10kB?</p>

<bitcoin-core><segregated-witness><bitcoin-core-development><bip><taproot>
Advanced math operations in TapScript?
Brqoo
# Advanced math operations in TapScript?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-11-06)

Hence BIP 342 proposes to enable opcodes like OP\_MOD, OP\_DIV, OP\_MUL is it possible to perform advanced math operations like EC point addition/multiplication in a script size of up to 10kB?

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, segregated-witness, bitcoin-core-development, bip, taproot


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-11-06. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

BIP 342 does not add any of these opcodes, and it is not possible to perform elliptic curve operations in it.

The only new/changed opcode semantics in BIP342 are:

* Schnorr signatures instead of ECDSA.
* OP\_CHECKSIGADD instead of OP\_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY).
* OP\_SUCCESSx opcodes for future extensibility
* Unknown pubkey types for future extensibility.
* Changes in resource accounting/limits.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Got it. One or more OP_SUCCESSx opcodes could potentially function as OP_MOD, OP_DIV, OP_MUL in a future soft fork right?  
> **username_1**: Yes, potentially.  

---

