OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY and its amount semantic

The dialogue opens with a critical perspective on the current direction of input validation parallelization in programming, specifically within the context of interpreter simplification for cross-input logic. The writer suggests that unless benchmarks can demonstrate substantial benefits, the added complexity introduced by parallel input validation may not be justified. This stance is rooted in the belief that simplifying the interpreter code would yield broader benefits, extending beyond the specific case of conditional close vectors (CCV). However, the writer expresses a decision to halt further pursuit of this approach due to its potential to excessively broaden the scope of changes required.

Further discussion shifts towards the topic of transaction malleability, particularly in scenarios where signatures are absent. The writer acknowledges that for certain transactions, such as the recovery transactions of vaults, the minimal malleability that exists is not problematic. This leads to a consideration of an alternate approach demonstrated through a proof of concept, which is argued to simplify the process by focusing on the annex's amount logic. This approach necessitates parsing parameters relevant to amount constraints and ensuring these constraints are present in the annex, which could introduce challenges like avoiding "quadratic annexing" by storing annex constraints efficiently.

Despite acknowledging the somewhat simpler nature of the proposed approach compared to deferred checks, the writer concludes it may still be more complicated than the existing implementation, which relies on mutexes for synchronization. This argument is supported by referencing the current amount logic contained within specific sections of Bitcoin’s interpreter code.

The conversation concludes by stepping back to consider the broader implications for batch validation and the necessity of choosing between synchronization with mutexes, deferred checks, or the removal of parallel input validation. The writer implies that the chosen solution should not only address the immediate concerns but also support CCV functionality without introducing inefficiencies or redundant data, underlining the importance of reusability and semantic preservation in these technical decisions.