< June 2025 >
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
2021-09-08
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/22.x 0640bf5 Pieter Wuille: doc: mention bech32m/BIP350 in doc/descriptors.md
<lucaferr>
I'm trying to find an example TapRoot keypath transaction in the test vectors linked from bip341. Any suggestions on how to find one?
2021-09-06
<dhruv>
prayank: That post is a few months old and things have changed. We have discovered good reasons to not authenticate DNS seeds for now and a re-work of BIP324 is WIP to allow for e2e encryption and authentication.
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/0.20 2b986b3 Pieter Wuille: doc: mention bech32m/BIP350 in doc/descriptors.md
2021-09-02
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] mjdietzx opened pull request #22867: Extend test coverage of BIP125 and document confusing/inconsistent behavior (master...test_bip125_edge_cases) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22867
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22809: test: Check that non-signaling BIP125 tx can be replaced via parent (master...2108-testTxReplace) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22809
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fa2e9de MarcoFalke: test: Check that non-signaling BIP125 tx can be replaced via parent
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master b997dd2 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22809: test: Check that non-signaling BIP125 tx can ...
<gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22698 | Implement RBF inherited signaling and fix getmempoolentry returned bip125-replaceable status by mjdietzx · Pull Request #22698 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<michaelfolkson>
laanwj: I agree at least a comment/addendum on BIP125 saying that Core doesn't implement it in full is a good idea
<laanwj>
then consider if we want to really implement BIP125 instead
<michaelfolkson>
If the code and the Core documentation don't match you would just update the documentation. But presumably BIPs have got buy in from alternative implementations and today Lightning implementations etc
<gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22698 | Implement RBF inherited signaling and fix getmempoolentry returned bip125-replaceable status by mjdietzx · Pull Request #22698 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #21144: test: convert feature_bip68_sequence.py to use MiniWallet (master...test-feature-bip68-sequence-without-wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21144
2021-08-26
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #21862: test: Set regtest.BIP65Height = 111 to speed up tests (master...2105-testFasterBip65) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21862
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master faf7e48 MarcoFalke: Set regtest.BIP65Height = 111 to speed up tests
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master adccbb3 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21862: test: Set regtest.BIP65Height = 111 to speed ...
<harding>
Differing mempool policies was actually anticipated, BIP125 says: "A Bitcoin Wiki page has been created to help wallet authors track deployed mempool policies relating to transaction replacement." which links to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_replacement
<harding>
(I don't really care, but I'm slightly against changing old BIPs, though I wouldn't mind adding a note to the bottom about the issue.)
<sipa>
FWIW, i disagree with changing the BIP - the number refers to the idea as it's written down, and changing it would only add confusion ("do you mean the old BIP125 approach or the new one?"); if we feel that this deserves a BIP in the first place, i think it'd need to be a new one
<harding>
michaelfolkson: of course what's in an implementation should overrule what's in a BIP. BIPs are not laws, they're documentation.
<harding>
michaelfolkson: to nitpick a little, LN was first described several months before BIP125 was written, and there were two different types of payment channels available for use at that time (BlueMatt wrote the implementation of one; I was on the team that wrote a different implementation which had just gone into light production use). Certainly second layer protocols are much more important today than they were back then, but it's not like
<michaelfolkson>
I guess if there are no policy BIPs ever again then it is less relevant. But I kinda think there should be. But the attitude of "the BIP gets overruled by whatever ended up in Core" shouldn't cut it in today's environment
<harding>
I don't even know what "take the BIPs more seriously" means.
<harding>
michaelfolkson: I don't think anyone took BIP125 less than seriously when it was written.
<michaelfolkson>
Going forward I think we need to take the BIPs more seriously. Different world when the BIP was originally written
<ariard__>
michaelfolkson: re bip125, well i'm still aiming to propose full-rbf for 0.24, though there is no guarantee it will land, still have to reach out to more historical opponents to have them express an opinion
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #22809: test: Check that non-signaling BIP125 tx can be replaced via parent (master...2108-testTxReplace) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22809
<sipa>
as BIP125/opt-in RBF in general are just gentlemen's agreements that are probably untenable in a rational market long-term
<kalle>
midnight: I don't think there was a bips channel, and I feel like a non-core-focused dev channel would be nice to have, at least. Whoever the genie is, I propose we try restoring #bitcoin-dev. :)
<midnight>
In the prior network I believe -bips- discussion had its own channels.
2021-08-25
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #22796: RBF move (1/n): extract BIP125 Rule 5 into policy/rbf (master...2021-08-rbf-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22796
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #14049: Enable libsecp256k1 ecdh module, add ECDH function to CKey (master...2018/08/bip151_ecdh) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14049
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #18242: Add BIP324 encrypted p2p transport de-/serializer (only used in tests) (master...2020/03/net_v2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18242
2021-08-16
<harding>
I know someone reading about the merge of disabling BIP37 by default ended up in the discussion that got it continued for an extra release, so that kind of communication works at least some times.
2021-08-13
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] mjdietzx opened pull request #22698: Fix CVE-2021-31876 RBF inherited signaling and fixes getmempoolentry returned bip125-replaceable status (master...fix_bip125_inherited_signaling) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22698
2021-08-10
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #22632: test: Set regtest.BIP66Height = 102 to speed up tests (master...2108-regtestFasterBip66) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22632
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 0b5344b W. J. van der Laan: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22632: test: Set regtest.BIP66Height = 102 to speed ...
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fafe896 MarcoFalke: test: Set regtest.BIP66Height = 102 to speed up tests
2021-08-03
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 222290f MarcoFalke: test: Set BIP34Height = 2 for regtest
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master ad0fc45 MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#16333: test: Set BIP34Height = 2 for regtest
< sipa>
you know i co-authored the taproot bips right?
2021-07-02
< michaelfolkson>
I'm assuming you'd like some feedback on your two BIPs achow101?
2021-07-01
< ariard>
bip90
< ariard>
bip90
< vasild>
sdaftuar: "to what extent it makes sense for nodes that don't understand, say, i2p addresses to be participating in i2p address relay at all" -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0155.mediawiki contains this sentence: "Clients are RECOMMENDED to gossip addresses from all known networks even if they are currently not connected to some of them. That could help multi-homed nodes and
< vasild>
sdaftuar: "to what extent it makes sense for nodes that don't understand, say, i2p addresses to be participating in i2p address relay at all" -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0155.mediawiki contains this sentence: "Clients are RECOMMENDED to gossip addresses from all known networks even if they are currently not connected to some of them. That could help multi-homed nodes and
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #22277: test: Properly set BIP34 height in CreateNewBlock_validity unit test (master...2106-test34) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22277
< ariard>
notwithstanding making the discussion far less heated for the sake of everyone, i agree that's a sender-only change and i don't see how it would restrain a future bip155 client to probe addrv2 support with its selected v22.0+ peers
< laanwj>
by itself (without other context) it seemed like a misinterpretation of BIP155 as i had intended it
< laanwj>
vasild: yes, likely instead of your proposed BIP155 change
< jnewbery>
a pre-bip155 bitcoin core node will send a getaddr, which implies that it wants to receive addresses
< jnewbery>
laanwj: A BIP cannot specify that not sending something implies some meaning. BIPs are opt-in. I can't say in my BIP "not sending this message implies thing".
< vasild>
anyway, if sendaddrv2 signalled preference to receive unrequested address messages, then bitcoin core-pre-bip155 do not want to receive unrequested address messages?
< laanwj>
well it is how I intended BIP155, I don't really agree with the new interpretation
< laanwj>
there could have been a third option in BIP155 but there wasn't
< jnewbery>
but this isn't misinterpreting BIP155. BIP155 is totally irrelevant for links that don't support address relay
< laanwj>
no, I'm arguing against misinterpreting BIP155
< laanwj>
I did think a signal whether a peer is interested in address messages or not is orthogonal to what messages it supports or not, there was discussion to include this in BIP155 at some point but it wasnm't
< jonatack>
those do seem like separate concerns / flags / BIPs etc
< jonatack>
in the BIP155 discussions nearly a year ago, it was decided that disable addr was a separate concern from BIP155-capable, thus the current implementation
< laanwj>
vasild: yes i remember during the bip155 discussion there were some ideas to also incorporate 'do not send me addresses at all', but this was not done, i had to think of this with #22245
2021-06-15
< sipa>
someone who doesn't care about addrv2 isn't going to implement BIP155, and thus isn't going to send sendaddrv2 either?
< sipa>
in order to implement BIP339 you must send wtxidrelay
< sipa>
but you're free not to implement BIP339
< ariard>
sounds more an oddity of bip339
< amiti>
and then there was a question about BIP155 on #22245, I've posted my thoughts on the PR, but want to give anyone the chance to raise questions / any remaining concerns
< sipa>
i saw some discussion with laanwj about bip155 changes, so maybe it's useful
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #22095: test: Additional BIP32 test vector for hardened derivation with leading zeros (master...bip32-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22095
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 8c6df2b MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22095: test: Additional BIP32 test vector for harden...
2021-05-28
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] kristapsk opened pull request #22095: test: Additional BIP32 test vector for hardened derivation with leading zeros (master...bip32-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22095
< wumpus>
yes i don't know, if the idea is that outsiders can add their own comments to BIPs, then closing it to say org members only wouldn't be great
< wumpus>
wait, does 'bips' have a publicly editable wiki
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr closed pull request #21399: Genericide BIP9 in variable/type names and comments (master...vbits_rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21399
< jnewbery>
ariard: luke-jr doesn't own the bips repo. He's the steward of a shared resource. He's abusing that stewardship
< jnewbery>
1. I think it's probably time to merge https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1116 (adding Kalle as BIP editor). It was proposed three weeks ago, has 15 ACKs, and no substantive opposition.
< Arvidt>
What is that version "v22.0" on the last line of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md ? Is it not Bitcoin version (they all start with v0.) ? Would make sense, since V.0.22 is not released yet and there are backports to 0.20 and 0.21 ongoing.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21862: test: Set regtest.BIP65Height = 112 to speed up tests (master...2105-testFasterBip65) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21862
2021-05-04
< hugohn>
@luke-jr the inclusion of things like NO_ENCRYPTION mode and BIP39-like PBKDF2 function parameters in the spec is to help with backward compatibility. IMO the main thing that might not be backward compatible with all vendors is the stateful nature of the Signers, which I have stated in the Compatibility section.
< michaelfolkson>
hugohn: I personally think it would be overkill to give the BIPs repo its own org
< michaelfolkson>
hugohn: They aren't really bundled with the Core project. It is true the BIPs repo is under the Bitcoin Core GitHub org but no Bitcoin Core maintainers merge BIP PRs afaik so I think it is fine under the Core org
< michaelfolkson>
I think there will be future discussions on a revised BIP process once (hopefully) Taproot activation is completed hugohn if you'd like to engage with that https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1015
< wumpus>
in any case, this discussion is kind of off-topic here, the bitcoin core project is one implementation, that the current BIPs repository is in the same orginazation is a historical artifact, it does not mean BIPs 'belong' to bitcoin core or something like that
< wumpus>
you mean like BIP1 and 2?
< hugohn>
right. if it's not a simple sequence generator, a BIP on BIPs probably makes more sense.
< rebroad>
MarcoFalke i only just realised that BIP111 didn't get updated with the changes I proposed back in 2016... so yeah, nevermind... i guess i wasn't keeping my eye on the ball back in 2016!
2021-05-01
< hsjoberg>
Yeah thanks, that's what I thought as well, and AFAICT the reason why we even have such high threshold for BIP9
2021-04-28
< sipa>
BIP342 specifically contains a (somewhat unrelated) improvement of introducing "key versions", specifically intended for things like that
< sipa>
depends on whether you mean taproot in reference to the technology to tweak keys as a commitment scheme, or the BIP341/BIP342 proposal
2021-04-25
< luke-jr>
I'm down to 8 tabs of BIPs PRs, one of which is presumably 1104; I don't know how involved the tab(s) before that are to go through
< murch>
Well, some wallets implemented experimental Taproot support before BIP350
< luke-jr>
jeremyrubin: BIPs PRs merging slowly is not a new thing at all.
< luke-jr>
harding: right now, I'm churning through dealing with the rebase of BIP8 on top of the ST stuff. I suppose that might go faster if there were people willing to review it. But frankly then it almost sounds like I'm holding the BIPs hostage, and I don't want to do that either.
< luke-jr>
as a reminder, though, BIPs *are* just documentation, so there really shouldn't need to be a rush
< jnewbery>
it does seem somewhat of a centralization problem. The BIPs repo is a venue for sharing proposed changes to Bitcoin, and one person decides who can update it, and also decides whether or not they should ever be replaced/supplemented?
< meshcollider>
jeremyrubin: I interpret that "long winded discussion" bit to be about the BIPs themselves, not the process of adding an editor
< ariard>
jeremyrubin: on the other point, I don't think bip2 recommend bitcoin-core-dev as a venue, maybe better suitted to #bitcoin or #bitcoin-wizards
< wumpus>
right the role of BIP editors is to follow the BIP1/2 process, not to pass personal judgement on BIPs besides very basic style criteria
< jeremyrubin>
As far as you've represented previously, you haven't had time to even look at the BIP341 changes which is why it's not merged.
< jnewbery>
I suggest that we lighten his load by adding a second BIP editor. BIP2 allows multiple BIP editors and refers to plural BIP editors in several places, eg "The BIP editors are intended to fulfill administrative and editorial responsibilities. The BIP editors monitor BIP changes, and update BIP headers as appropriate."
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master dbc1981 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: check that _all_ invalid-CLTV txs are allowed in a block pre-BIP65
2021-04-20
< ariard>
sipa: i agree, the best you can hope is an economic compatible tx-relay policy widely deployed on the network like bip125
2021-04-16
< aj>
release notes and an update of bips.md ("without mainnet activation") probably should be done before rc1?
< luke-jr>
kallewoof: maybe there should be a new BIP, also eliminating BIP Comments and adding Markdown back into the mix. certain people have decided to skip BIPs because they don't like people leaving comments, and I can only guess the Lightning BOLT stuff is because they prefer markdown…
< luke-jr>
ultimately BIP9 uses starttime to choose a height based on difficulty-period boundaries (2 weeks long)
< luke-jr>
provoostenator: after all, it had plenty of review and was RTM weeks before this BIP9 stuff, and still wasn't merged anyway
< luke-jr>
provoostenator: MarcoFalke already blocked me from doing so; I have no reason to expect decent behaviour from devs strongarming BIP9 back in at this point anyway. Something is clearly going on behind the scenes.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #21377: Speedy trial support for versionbits (master...202103-bip9-speedy-trial-support) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377
2021-04-14
< luke-jr>
or to be more correct, people who don't consider it a triviality, are unanimously in favour of BIP8
< luke-jr>
it's not triviality except to BIP9 advocates
< emzy>
fwiw I was prefering bip8 and ok with bip9 in the beginning. And I think many thought the same at that time.
< jeremyrubin>
Sorry if this is line noise for this channel -- but this is the best job I could do at breaking down the claim that BIP8 has consensus (LOT=?) and ST/MTP does not
< jeremyrubin>
Overall I feel relativelty confident based on this review dismissing the notion that BIP8 has consensus and ST/MTP does not
< luke-jr>
jeremyrubin: BIP8 doesn't require LOT for ST any more than BIP9 does
< jeremyrubin>
Further in support of BIP8's consensus being questionable earlier on, I think harding has had a very good read on the community in general. I don't beleive he would have included BIP9 in his proposal as an option if he thought the community was decisive
< jeremyrubin>
Further, the type of consensus around BIP8 in these meeting logs (maybe it's somewhere else, figure the meetings are more relevant than twitter/reddit) is not super high quality IMO because it's mainly ACK'ing the properties of BIP8 as opposed to the specific implementation
< jeremyrubin>
"but we already agreed to XXX for BIP8" doesn't hold when a keystone component of BIP8 (LOT) is what made ST a thing in the first place.
< jeremyrubin>
so it seems inaccurate to me to label BIP8 as having consensus when a key parameter did not
< jeremyrubin>
and BIP8 requires *a choice* of that
< jeremyrubin>
I can see why luke-jr and michaelfolkson think there might be consensus on BIP8, but I think they are viewing the process as "gradient descent on a continuos surface" as opposed to a discontinuous process.
< jeremyrubin>
BIPs are often descriptive
< jeremyrubin>
(in fact, it's usually preferable to be descriptive otherwise we have useless BIPs clogging the numberspace)
< jeremyrubin>
in fact at this point it probably has more review than any BIP8 anything has ever had
< jeremyrubin>
and you've extrapolated BIP9 RIP ==> MTP cannot be used
< jeremyrubin>
I see people caring about the *properties* of BIP8 vs BIP9, not excluding MTP being used in the future
< jeremyrubin>
reading through http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-02.log, based on which michaelfolkson bases claim that BIP9 is "dead" and therefore MTP can't be used, TBH I just don't see that being the emergent agreement
< luke-jr>
anyway, how things get documented in BIPs is trivial in comparison to the real issues
< jeremyrubin>
luke-jr: community's consensus aroudn BIP8 WHERE
< luke-jr>
ST/BIP8 had (has?) widespread support, not ST/BIP9
< luke-jr>
most have never even heard of 21377, and it is opposed to the community's consensus aroudn BIP8
< luke-jr>
the community is almost unanimous in favour of BIP8
< jeremyrubin>
What test is BIP8 passing that 21377 is not
< jeremyrubin>
Luke, what test is BIP8 passing w.r.t. consensus that ST is not?
< jeremyrubin>
he's consistently failed to answer questions like "what is incompatible with ST" or "what definition of consensus are you using that passes BIP8 and not ST"
< jeremyrubin>
What is BIP8 LOT=? satisfying
< jeremyrubin>
Maybe remove BIP8 LOT=true?
< jeremyrubin>
luke-jr can you give a definition for what consensus is? Is there a concrete and consistent definition you are applying that BIP8 LOT=true is satisfying that the current ST MTP start/stop + height of activation minimum is not meeting that can be applied here and in the future?
< jonatack>
jamesob: achow101: same, i'm still reviewing. did a first pass to get the code and bips in my head, need to do another one
< luke-jr>
sipa: there is agreement on BIP8, yes
< jeremyrubin>
I'll reiterate here: luke-jr luke-jr can you give a definition for what consensus is? Is there a concrete and consistent definition you are applying that BIP8 LOT=true is satisfying that the current ST MTP start/stop + height of activation minimum is not meeting that can be applied here and in the future?
2021-04-12
< sipa>
luke-jr: BIP68 treats it as signed, afaik
2021-04-08
< luke-jr>
anyone involved in the community knows there is consensus around BIP8.
< jeremyrubin>
which says: " The idea can be implemented on top of either Bitcoin Core's existing BIP9 code or its proposed BIP8 patchset.[6]"
< luke-jr>
achow101: I didn't say that, but it's far fewer than the consensus around BIP8
< core-meetingbot>
topic: Attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8 (luke-jr)
< wumpus>
#topic Attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8 (luke-jr)
< wumpus>
one proposed meeting topic: attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8 (luke-jr)
< luke-jr>
#proposedmeetingtopic attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8
< sipa>
amiti: i think that's fair... i also don't really know what the issue would be with a sendaddrtypes message with a bitvector of bip155 network types for example (apart from not wanting to deal with that too right now)
< sipa>
aj: i think ariard is trying to point out that bip37/bip60 only talk about *announcing* transactions, not sending (possibly unannounced) transactions
< ariard>
aj: right but imo current bip60 semantic isn't clear with what the sender is allowed to do
< sipa>
if you're going by reading the spec by the letter... what does bip60"s fRelay flag even mean for a client that chooses not.to implement bip37?
< aj>
ariard: I run a -blocksonly node. You run a bip60 compliant node. I tell you fRelay=false. You don't send me any txes. You told me fRelay=true. Therefore I can send you a tx, without violating bip60.
< ariard>
aj: my point was bip37 original scope was unclear if it concerns only inv(tx) or any tx-related message, bip338 has the merit to clarify
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #21399: Genericide BIP9 in variable/type names and comments (master...vbits_rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21399
2021-03-08
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #21392: Implement BIP 8 based Speedy Trial activation (master...bip8-speedy-trial) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21392
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] ajtowns opened pull request #21377: Speedy trial support for versionbits (master...202103-bip9-speedy-trial-support) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377
2021-03-04
< achow101>
andytoshi: I've pushed the updated tests to my bips pr too
< andytoshi>
achow101: in BIP174, the test vector "PSBT with unknown types in the inputs" describes an input which has keytype 0x0f and key 0102030405060708. this is a valid PSBT
< sipa>
so i guess we could list BIP60 as implemented, actually
< MarcoFalke>
Bitcoin Core implements BIP60, but doesn't require peers to implement it. (Like any other optional BIP)
< luke-jr>
it doesn't require breakign non-BIP60 peers
< sdaftuar>
sipa: but we're compatible with bip60 peers, and i think we now expect our peers to always read our fRelay flag if its' set to false, right?
< ariard>
even the original bip37 is really unclear if fRelay semantic is to disable tx-relay or just tx-announcement
< sipa>
luke-jr: BIP60 is about predictably-sized version messages, not just the fRelay flag
< sipa>
it'd probably not be a bad idea to have bip32 derivation in the test framework
2021-02-26
< michaelfolkson>
"I like a hidden option in Core which is always there from day one, which is lot=true or taproot-bip8-lot-true or something that would change lockinontimeout to true and also change the default user agent string so you can tell people are running it. That’s good because by the time 6 months comes almost everyone has upgraded anyway, they’ve just got to change their config." (From the Sydney Socratic)
< sipa>
you may mean bip147
< sipa_>
bip62 is not consensus
< shesek>
(NULLDUMMY being validness rather than standardness as of bip62)
2021-02-22
< bitcoin-git>
[gui] MarcoFalke merged pull request #206: Display fRelayTxes and bip152_highbandwidth_{to, from} in peer details (master...add-fields-to-peer-details) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/206
2021-02-20
< wumpus>
i think what i need is a way to generate a *derived xpub* for a custom path in the wallet, i can do this with external tooling (e.g. darosior's bip32 python module), but afaik not from bitcoin core itself?
2021-02-17
< jb55>
I don't even think recommending bip39 support to 'newbies' would be a good idea. ideally there would be an easy way to connect a hardware wallet and get descriptors that way vs bip39 on your computer
< sipa>
there are a few things that can be worked on towards supporting that, like descriptor export, getting descriptor wallets in general less experimental, and things like bip39 support in descriptors directly
< sipa>
there is an issue for BIP39 support in descriptors somewhere
2021-02-13
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master b08cbd0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #21028: doc/bips: Add BIPs 43, 44, 49, and 84
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master c943326 Luke Dashjr: doc/bips: Add BIPs 43, 44, 49, and 84
< sipa>
well, because multi doesn't exist in bip342 (no OP_CHECKMULTISIG due to not batch verifiable)
2021-02-10
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] danben opened pull request #21144: test: convert feature_bip_sequence.py to use MiniWallet (master...test-feature-bip68-sequence-without-wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21144
2021-02-09
< bioverse>
I have a nano ledger s with some bitcoin. I have the 24 words and wallet in a safe place. I went to https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ using a Ubuntu live from USB. I put the 24 mnemonic words and could not find any bitcoin address ever used. I freaked. I thought. Oh my god! I ordered a second brand new nano ledger s. Put the 24 words, using ledger live in a brand new laptop and my coins were there in the brand new ledger nano s. I am safe. But I have
2021-02-05
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master e1e6714 Jon Atack: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 3931732 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation (master...signet-keep-post-verack-sendaddrv2-peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20646
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack reopened pull request #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation (master...signet-keep-post-verack-sendaddrv2-peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20646
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack closed pull request #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation (master...signet-keep-post-verack-sendaddrv2-peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20646
< dr_orlovsky>
so BIP43-type new purpose value for P2TR will be a good solution in this respect as well?
< sipa>
i guess that means this whole point is moot, and we should probably have a deep look at proving security of ECDSA and Schnorr signatures of linearly related keys (as those created by P2C-tweaking or BIP32 derivation result)
< sipa>
i don't know if that needs a standard like BIP43 - perhaps it helps
< sipa>
yeah, you'll probably want a separate bip32 path for P2TR outputs; but that has nothing to do with ECDSA/Schnorr; you just don't want to reuse the same keys
< nickler>
luke-jr: what are the relevant PRs and issues? The two from aj to the BIP8 and your #19573?
< sdaftuar>
sipa: whether bips are the right place or not is unclear to me, but i think communicating relay policies like this so that 3rd party wallets know what behavior to aim for is helpful. in the case of bip125, my hesitation towards amending or redrafting is that we should fix the implementation in other ways anyway
< sipa>
if there really is a discrepancy between bip125 and what bitcoin core implements, it could be mentioned in doc/bips.md
< sipa>
i don't think these things belong in BIPs
2021-01-20
< pinheadmz>
is BIP125 (RBF) accurate with the implementation? Specifically, is it the absolute fees that are compared between replaces and replacing tx? or the fee rate?
< sdaftuar>
sipa: my understanding as well that there are no BIPs on it
< sipa>
i don't think it's unreasonable to recommend not relaying addresses to disabletx peers; so far addr relay is completely local policy anyway with no BIPs discussing it at all afaik
< jnewbery>
sdaftuar: do you have any further thoughts about what a future addr relay negotiation method would look like? I know you were pushing for something similar with BIP155
< sdaftuar>
but to do all that, we need to give nodes a way to know that an inbound peer is a block-relay-only peer. currently block-relay-only peers use the fRelay flag from BIP37 to instruct their peer they don't want transactions
< sdaftuar>
but BIP37 allows for transaction relay to resume with a FILTERCLEAR message
2021-01-10
< luke-jr>
bips.md?
< sipa>
sdaftuar_: also added a mention of BIP339 in the release notes
2021-01-04
< vasild>
but I failed to verify the callers of the constructor CSubNet(CNetAddr&) which used to create one-host-subnet before and would also "work" for torv2 addresses (in the code before bip155) by matching a single address
< vasild>
jonatack: when I extended CNetAddr to support longer-than-16-bytes addresses (as part of bip155) I also changed CSubNet to only handle ipv4 and ipv6 addresses - because it contains char netmask[16]; it makes no sense to apply it to e.g. 32 byte torv3 address
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master cc592a8 MarcoFalke: Merge #20189: test: Switch to BIP341's suggested scheme for outputs withou...
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 812baaa Pieter Wuille: Switch to BIP341's suggested scheme for outputs without script
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20189: test: Switch to BIP341's suggested scheme for outputs without script (master...202010_taproot_std_noscript) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20189
2020-12-16
< jnewbery>
If you consider BIP37 and optional standard, then it's not really a violation of the protocol to send tx INVs after receiving a version with fRelay = false
< vasild>
eventually, maybe we would update bip155 to mandate the i2p addr size is allowed to be either 32 or 35 bytes
2020-12-14
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 4b7b58b Jon Atack: Update net_processing WTXID documentation per BIP339