2022-11-09

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #26472: test: add missing bech32m / BIP86 test-cases to wallet_descriptor.py (master...202211-test-add_missing_bech32m_bip86_tests_to_wallet_descriptor_py) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26472
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9dce301 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26472: test: add missing bech32m / BIP86 test-cases ...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 887d85e Sebastian Falbesoner: test: add missing bech32m / BIP86 test-cases to wallet_descriptor.py

2022-11-05

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/23.x 5a57b65 Sebastian Falbesoner: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md

2022-11-04

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #26443: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md (master...202201-doc-add_bip86_to_bipsmd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26443
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 83cf055 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26443: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 303fb8f Sebastian Falbesoner: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md

2022-11-03

<bytes1440000> its a basic thing thats lacking and nobody likes bip47

2022-11-02

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/22.x 3343ec5 fanquake: doc: update version number in bips.md to v22.1

2022-11-01

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #26443: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md (master...202201-doc-add_bip86_to_bipsmd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26443

2022-10-27

<luke-jr> FWIW, lack of bitcoin org ownership prevented me from adding Kalle to the bips repo a while back, but I'm not sure I want that kind of access (in terms of becoming a possible target)

2022-10-26

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #26341: test: add BIP158 false-positive element check in rpc_scanblocks.py (master...202210-test-check_for_false_positives_in_scanblocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26341
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3bca6cd Sebastian Falbesoner: test: add compact block filter (BIP158) helper routines
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #25957: wallet: fast rescan with BIP157 block filters for descriptor wallets (master...202208-speedup_descriptor_wallet_rescan_with_block_filters) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25957

2022-10-23

<sipa> ping was part of the original codebase, pong was added in bip31

2022-10-20

<ariard> achow101: tbh, few contributors have already to live in a multi repo world, in the sense monitoring libsecp256k1, the bips repo, the bolts repo, maybe a lightning implem, maybe bitcoin-inquisition, sounds more a question of personal time-management

2022-10-19

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #26341: test: add BIP158 false-positive element check in rpc_scanblocks.py (master...202210-test-check_for_false_positives_in_scanblocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26341

2022-10-13

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e899d4c Chris Geihsler: init: limit bip30 exceptions to coinbase txs
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/24.x da6fba6 Andrew Chow: docs: Add 371 to bips.md

2022-10-03

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #26231: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0 (master...202210-doc-update_bips_for_24x) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26231
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 25742aa fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26231: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a9d20ee Sebastian Falbesoner: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0

2022-10-02

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #26231: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0 (master...202210-doc-update_bips_for_24x) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26231

2022-09-29

<sipa> Yes, of course you are - BIP350 specifies that taproot addresses use bech32m.

2022-09-26

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow closed pull request #22867: test: Extend test coverage of BIP125 and document confusing/inconsistent behavior (master...test_bip125_edge_cases) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22867

2022-09-22

<jonatack> (idem for git cloning the bips repository locally)
<amovfx> I've seen a few videos, Ill read over the BIPS today thanks
<sipa> amovfx: Have you read the BIPs (341 and 342 mostly)? There are more high-level explainers on various online media too. I've done one or two talks about it too.
<sipa> the interaction with bip324 i'd say is an implementation detail; the spec doesn't care about what port it runs on, and bip324 capable listeners can accept both on the same port
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<warren> I was curious if anyone knows what's going on with BIP324?

2022-09-19

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow merged pull request #26124: docs: Add 371 to bips.md (master...doc-psbt-bips) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26124
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0b02ce9 glozow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26124: docs: Add 371 to bips.md
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d3d6a18 Andrew Chow: docs: Add 371 to bips.md
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #26124: docs: Add 371 to bips.md (master...doc-psbt-bips) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26124

2022-09-15

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25874 | BIP155 CJDNS address with length 187 (should be 16) · Issue #25874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<glozow> bip35 mempool should be disabled unless you offer them bip 37 bloom filter services iirc

2022-09-06

2022-08-29

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #25957: wallet: fast rescan with BIP157 block filters for descriptor wallets (master...202208-speedup_descriptor_wallet_rescan_with_block_filters) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25957

2022-08-26

<xnf0k> Hey just wanted to let you folks know that https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki had some unrelated content. I reverted it, but maybe the page(s) should be locked since this isn't the first time it has happened.

2022-08-24

<jeremyrubin> btw people might be interested to see that https://bipbounty.org/ is "all set up" now, as a 501c3 for setting up BIP oriented bounties. If anyone doing work that they think would benefit from having such a program set up, please be in touch.

2022-08-22

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 375ebad glozow: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 92bb700 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25902: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25902: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup (master...2022-08-125-fixup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25902
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #25902: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup (master...2022-08-125-fixup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25902
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #25775: docs: remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (master...2022-08-bip125-signal-only) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25775
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c5f0cbe fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25775: docs: remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 32024d4 glozow: scripted-diff: remove mention of BIP125 from non-signaling var names
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1dc03dd glozow: [doc] remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125

2022-08-07

<PaperSword> meaning the next soft fork version per BIP9 would be 0x1000?

2022-08-03

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #25775: docs: remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (master...2022-08-bip125-signal-only) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25775

2022-07-25

<luke-jr> achow101: poke, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1293 seems to be waiting on you since April ;)

2022-07-14

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #25602: wallet, RPC: Default BIP125 signal to -mempoolfullrbf (master...2207-rpc-wallet-replace-🌡) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25602

2022-07-13

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25596: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_NUMBER to MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE (master...2207-test-scrpt-rbf-🐴) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25596
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 31c6309 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25596: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa0404d MacroFake: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_NUMBER to MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQU...
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #25602: wallet, RPC: Default BIP125 signal to -mempoolfullrbf (master...2207-rpc-wallet-replace-🌡) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25602

2022-07-12

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #25596: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_NUMBER to MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE (master...2207-test-scrpt-rbf-🐴) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25596

2022-07-07

<sipa> kanzure: Yes, definitely - nothing changes there. Though lately the projects I work on are more research-oriented, like miniscript, bip324, and various other things. I plan to keep writing code and reviewing.

2022-06-30

<laanwj> well, bips is the thing that can be argued to belong under bitcoin itself
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23233 | BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer by dhruv · Pull Request #23233 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2022-06-23

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #25446: p2p: Set CNode::m_relays_txs=true when receiving BIP37 filters (master...2022-06-22778-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25446
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e7a9133 dergoegge: [net processing] Set CNode::m_relays_txs=true when receiving BIP37 filters

2022-06-22

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dergoegge opened pull request #25446: [net processing] Set CNode::m_relays_txs=true when receiving BIP37 filters (master...2022-06-22778-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25446

2022-06-17

<sipa> vasild: Uh, my guess would be that it's just "these can't be updated because they're irrelevant", and this logic predates BIP155.
<laanwj> is something unclear to you in the motivation https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0322.mediawiki#Motivation ?

2022-06-15

<instagibbs> are there any tapscript spending vectors lying around for wallet implementors like https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341/wallet-test-vectors.json ?

2022-06-13

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv opened pull request #25361: BIP324: Cipher suite (master...bip324-cipher-suite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361

2022-06-07

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #25228: test: add BIP-125 rule 5 testcase with default mempool (master...2022-05-bip125-rule5-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25228

2022-06-04

<DavidBakin> the file src/test/data/bip341_wallet_vectors doesn't have that for the "scriptPubKey" tests that test the MAST so it doesn't have enough information

2022-06-02

<laanwj> i've been looking into BIP324, and catching up with the libbitcoin kernel stuff
<laanwj> speaking of that i've reviewed one of the BIP324 PRs today (#20962)
<sipa> Also, spec work on BIP324 (v2 p2p transport) with dhruv and real_or_random, hopefully public soon.
<sipa> There is some context that explains common usage, but that's not really the full description of everything one could do with these BIPs... that'd be unbounded.
<sipa> Oh, the BIPs don't really describe the creation. They're specifying the validation rules, not construction.
<sipa> If the sig is 64 bytes long, return Verify(p, hashTapSighash(0x00 || SigMsg(0x00, 1) || ext), sig), where Verify is defined in BIP340.
<sipa> BIP342 has very similar text:
<sipa> If the sig is 64 bytes long, return Verify(q, hashTapSighash(0x00 || SigMsg(0x00, 0)), sig)[20], where Verify is defined in BIP340.
<sipa> The rules for verifying signatures in the context of taproot key path spends are specified in BIP341. The rules for verifying signatures in the context of tapscript script path spends are in BIP342.
<sipa> BIP340 describes a digital signature scheme, it has no notion of sighash types or even anything related to Bitcoin at all.
<sipa> davidbakin: (1) luke-jr gave the link to the spec for key path spending in BIP341. For tapscript script path spending it's in BIP342, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0342.mediawiki#signature-validation
<sipa> @davidbakin The annex is completely different from the tapscript extension. Annex is defined in BIP341, and is a way to add extra fields to txins generically. The tapscript extension is what is added to the common sighash computation from BIP341 in BIP342 with the tapscript-specific fields.
<reardencode> davidbakin: 2: The extension is to the `Common Signature Message` which is hashed with hash_TapSighash. 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki#cite_ref-10-0
<DavidBakin> P.S. for the 64-byte vs 65-byte signature I also see the hash_type in src/script/interpreter.cpp@1687 but still don't know where that shows up in the BIPs
<DavidBakin> I'm trying to understand BIPS-341 and -342 - why is the sig sometimes 64 bytes and sometimes 65 byte? I infer from BIP-341 note 21 that the 64-byte sig is with hash_type == 0 (i.e., SIGHASH_DEFAULT) and that the 65-byte sigs are for the other hash_types which are _appended_ to the sig - but where is this actually specified (besides this note 21)?

2022-05-31

<sdaftuar> _aj_: I'm not sure I think of that bip125 issue as a bug in the code -- I think the code does what is intended, and the BIP should just be clarified

2022-05-30

<instagibbs> does core currently have issues with computing bip125 inherited signaling? Lost track of this
<theStack> bip324 question about handshake: in older slides (from breaking bitcoin 2019) i saw it was proposed that only odd pubkeys (i.e. starting with 0x03) are allowed, but the current BIP states only even pubkeys (i.e. starting with 0x02) are. any specific reason for this change?
<theStack> b10c: (RE BIP324 link) That seems to be very useful, thanks! Indeed I wasn't aware that there is a dedicated webpage for BIP324
<b10c> theStack: not sure if you've seen https://bip324.com/sections/code-review/ (RE https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545#issuecomment-1141148561) also not sure if that's up-to-date

2022-05-27

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jamesob opened pull request #25228: test: add BIP-125 rule 5 testcase with default mempool (master...2022-05-bip125-rule5-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25228

2022-05-26

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c4c5b9c Anthony Towns: consensus/params: set default values for BIP9Deployment

2022-05-19

<pinheadmz_> Is this a discrepency between bip341 and taproot sighash implementation?

2022-05-18

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5dc6d92 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: make BIP157 messages default-constructible (MESSAGEMAP compatibility)
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25126: test: add BIP157 message parsing support (via MESSAGEMAP) (master...202205-test-support_BIP157_deser_via_messagemap) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25126
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e016c00 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25126: test: add BIP157 message parsing support (via...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 71e4cfe Sebastian Falbesoner: test: p2p: add missing BIP157 message types to MESSAGEMAP

2022-05-13

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #25126: test: add BIP157 message parsing support (via MESSAGEMAP) (master...202205-test-support_BIP157_deser_via_messagemap) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25126

2022-05-05

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25038 | BIP125-based Package RBF by glozow · Pull Request #25038 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<theStack> are there currently any alternative concepts availabe or for discussion for BIP322? i'd like to focus more on generic signing support and wonder if there's a reason why the BIP322 PR (#24058) didn't get more traction yet
<fanquake> *bips wiki
<achow101> bips wiki specifically

2022-04-30

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #25038: BIP125-based Package RBF (master...package-rbf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25038

2022-04-26

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #24979: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341 (master...bip341_note_16) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24979
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 30c1c6e fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24979: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master df08c23 Gregory Sanders: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341

2022-04-25

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #24979: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341 (master...bip341_note_16) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24979

2022-04-12

<sipa> Both are interesting actually; the context is for BIP324 it'd be good to have an idea of how much per-message CPU cost overhead has. If most of the bandwidth on the network is due to large messages, this doesn't matter as much, for example.

2022-04-10

<cornfeedhobo> can anyone tell me if there has been any movement on getting bip300/301 enacted?

2022-04-08

<dhruv> laanwj: #24792 brings in secp master, but BIP324 depends on secp/#979 and scp/#982 which are still pending review. The conflict is likely because the tree changes iiuc.
<laanwj> dhruv: #24792 bumping secp256k1 probably helps with BIP324? (i see it conflicts with about every BIP324 PR but don't know if they're the same changes)

2022-04-07

<sipa> note that BIP324's spec is undergoing some changes still... the protocol will likely not be interoperable
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<laanwj> oh PSA: i've started testing BIP324 P2P v2 (#24545) on a node, let me know if you want to also test and connect

2022-04-06

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<laanwj> re: #24545, would it make sense to do a public test of BIP324 at some point? i mean it's much easier to test the PR if there's some other v2 peers to talk to

2022-04-03

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] stratospher opened pull request #24748: test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption (master...p2p-encryption-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748

2022-03-23

<cocoon> luke-jr: BIPs are not part of core. How do you explain this to whole world including laanwj who knows this exists: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018871.html. I have tried my best to share they use an implementation they like or fork but NETWORK EFFECT is a thing you cannot go against. If you every try to do
<luke-jr> to be clear, BIPs are not part of Core. The bitcoin github org just has multiple groups and multiple projects.

2022-03-22

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #22698: Implement RBF inherited signaling and fix getmempoolentry returned bip125-replaceable status (master...fix_bip125_inherited_signaling) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22698

2022-03-17

<achow101> descriptors does not preclude containing bip39 mnemonics or other methods of deriving keys as KEY expressions

2022-03-12

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23561 | BIP324: Handshake prerequisites by dhruv · Pull Request #23561 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23432 | BIP324: CPubKey encode/decode to elligator-squared by dhruv · Pull Request #23432 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23233 | BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer by dhruv · Pull Request #23233 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<dhruv> Can I request a BIP324 label on Github for #20962, #23233, #23561, #23432, #24545, #23441 and #24005?
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv opened pull request #24545: BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport (master...bip324-enable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545

2022-03-11

<achow101> and that people would comment on BIPs when they are proposed to the mailing list before the PR is opened
<achow101> Ideally the "don't implement yet" stage is when it's on the mailng list prior to being PR'd to bips

2022-03-10

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b7dbc83 laanwj: qt: Remove network detection based on address in BIP21
<bitcoin-git> [gui] hebasto merged pull request #563: qt: Remove network detection based on address in BIP21 (master...2022-03-remove-autodetect-code) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/563

2022-03-08

<bitcoin-git> [gui] laanwj opened pull request #563: qt: Remove network detection based on address in BIP21 (master...2022-03-remove-autodetect-code) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/563

2022-03-06

<michaelfolkson> Reminder that this channel is for Bitcoin Core development discussion. There is a #bitcoin-dev channel for discussion of mailing list, BIPs etc. prayank has been told that on multiple occasions now

2022-03-02

<prayank> With current level of privacy in Bitcoin that we are trying to keep as is without CT because SUPPLY (no clue why range proof not possible) and things used by people in real life when you expect basics like no address reuse, nobody sharing tx/address info on social media etc. and BIP 47 is bad because creating payment code with this library can kill bitcoin: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bip47

2022-02-25

<michaelfolkson> Spam report: Muhammad816 created _Sidebar in the BIPs repo wiki

2022-02-24

2022-02-23

<roasbeef> sipa: what do you think about this PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1284 ? it's that change re checksigverify I mentioned a few days ago w/ some slight modifications
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #24420: doc: Update bips.md for 23.x (master...2022-02-bips-update) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24420
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 03bc08e laanwj: doc: Mention missing BIP157 in bips.md
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b6a2670 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24420: doc: Update bips.md for 23.x
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e97e3de laanwj: doc: Update bips.md for 23.x

2022-02-22

<laanwj> BIP158 is mentioned; seems they could be grouped together?
<sipa> Heh, bips.md does not list BIP157 which we support since 0.21.0.
<sipa> It's for bips.md, I assume.
<michaelfolkson> darosior: The descriptor BIPs are in that BIPs doc
<darosior> Me neither. I thought about BIP370 (PSBT v2) but that isn't merged and the newly-written descriptor BIPs but they were already implemented previously.
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #24420: doc: Update bips.md for 23.x (master...2022-02-bips-update) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24420
<laanwj> were any new bips implemented after 22.0?

2022-02-11

<michaelfolkson> Secondly, this is the wrong IRC channel for these discussions. We've set up #bitcoin-dev for discussion on BIPs, mailing list posts. This is not a Core development issue

2022-02-10

<belcher> prayank bip78 says it uses http

2022-02-09

<michaelfolkson> I think uvhw is spamming various repos under the Core GitHub org. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1282#issuecomment-1033676860

2022-02-04

<laanwj> were any new bips implemented in the 0.23 release that haven't been added to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md yet?

2022-01-29

<sipa> BIP34 crossed out 2^31 + 2 versions.
<roconnor> soo are you saying that BIP68 crossed out two versions for little reason?
<sipa> As far as I know, BIP68 is the only consensus rule that cares about transaction versions at all.
<roconnor> Honestly thinking about BIP68 is what prompted my question.
<roconnor> IIRC bip68 specficially static casts to unsigned for its work.
<sipa> If that's literally the only change you make, I think it would be a softfork (because it'd cause the BIP68 version 2 semantics to apply to formerly-negative-version transactions).

2022-01-26

<prayank> What I already said in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1238 is true

2022-01-25

<prayank> e against a scammer, being postive and trying to helps devs. Then maybe I understand him and still respect for technical knowledge but nothing else. Also do not forget lot of devs from this repo who are influential had emailed about some decentralization of BIP repo, nobody appeared in meeting and CEO of BIPs decided that it will stay the same (sarcasm). Nobody should wait for anyone else to approve their ideas if they want to

2022-01-22

<laanwj> backes: yes, 70016 is the latest in use on the network, BIP338 describes 70017

2022-01-21

<jeremyrubin> another option would be to make precomputeddata take a lambda for BIP119LazyInit
<jeremyrubin> make the BIP119LazyInit function defined by users of the abstract base
<fanquake> Blocked shahinfe from the /bitcoin org. Also for spamming the /bips wiki

2022-01-20

<fanquake> Blocked 13rAXwNNnaAuCJA3z1REfJbJNMwgK4LBTC from the bitcoin/ org, as they were spamming the wiki in the bips repo

2022-01-13

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #24058: BIP-322 basic support (master...202201-bip322) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24058

2022-01-12

<andytoshi> achow101: i feel bad asking, but is there any status update on bip370 test vectors?

2022-01-11

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #24038: wallet: Enforce BIP68 (master...2201-lockstuff) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24038

2022-01-10

<dhruv> Is there any history of running all functional test multiple times with varying CLI arguments? Working on BIP324, I am adding in a new CLI arg: -v2transport. I'm wondering if it would be prudent to run all functional tests with -v2transport=0 and also -v2transport=1
<Kaizen_K_> perfect, the bips are excellent cause they provide the nitty gritty details of what I need to map my braad and foggy understanding of bitcoin to the implimentations of
<sipa> In BIP143 the part of the signature message that depends on the number of inputs is precomputed once for the entire transaction.

2022-01-08

<sipa> There are two pairs of BIP30 violations.

2022-01-07

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow closed pull request #23121: [policy] check ancestor feerate in RBF, remove BIP125 Rule2 (master...ancestorscore-remove-bip1252) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23121

2022-01-05

<TallTim> Forgive me if wrong channel, but I'd like to know where/when BIP 1126 (Adds BIP52) for Optical Proof of Work (OPoW) will be discussed. The logic on this one seems deeply flawed in favor of the "Bitcoin will consume too much power" narrative. Thanks in advance.

2022-01-02

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #23882: doc: testnet3 was not reset and is doing BIP30 checks again (master...2112-docBip30Testnet3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23882
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa1a51c MarcoFalke: doc: testnet3 was not reset and is doing BIP30 checks again
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6535772 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#23882: doc: testnet3 was not reset and is doing BIP3...

2021-12-29

<michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: Don't worry, an intro is in the BIP. No comparison on how eltoo with APO compares to eltoo with CTV and CSFS though https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki#eltoo-with-op_checksigfromstackverify
<michaelfolkson> Rightly imo. I don't think we need to speculate on what BIPs will be merged in future in that doc.
<michaelfolkson> prayank: Plus for Taproot the BIPs doc was updated in a standalone PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21925
<michaelfolkson> prayank: I don't think a two line description of a BIP in a doc on BIPs will avoid a CVE but maybe I'm just being unimaginative
<prayank> michaelfolkson: If PR gets merged the doc will be updated in same PR, it it doesn't get merged it won't be updated. Other BIPs have just BIP number, link to BIP repository, one sentence about BIP and PR link. So I thought we can update the same for BIP 119. Anyway its not something very important for me but sometimes you can get CVEs for lack of documentation so I thought its good to not forget about docs.
<michaelfolkson> prayank: That is for merged and released in Core BIPs
<prayank> jeremyrubin: maybe you can add information about bip 119 and related PR in doc/bips.md in #21702

2021-12-27

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #23882: doc: testnet3 was not reset and is doing BIP30 checks again (master...2112-docBip30Testnet3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23882

2021-12-25

<prayank> jeremyrubin: Compiling #21702 branch. BIP 119 mentioned about coinjoin. I want to test this with a setup of 2-3 regtest nodes. I don't understand the code written here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki#detailed-specification however I can test things based on the description that "participants agree on a single output which pays all participants". Do you have any other suggestion to help me in this

2021-12-23

<jeremyrubin> FYI in response to some private feedback i've clarified a few points in the BIP around alternative vault designs (the original one is outdated from my latest thinking) and activation stuff https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1257

2021-12-20

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1fd49eb glozow: [doc] clarify RBF difference from BIP125

2021-12-17

<meshcollider> Also, admin perms on bitcoin/bitcoin doesn't require admin on bitcoin/BIPs
<laanwj> that the bips repository is in the same organization is somewhat questionable in any case
<michaelfolkson> I guess the elephant in the room is that some people wanted to remove Luke as a BIP editor earlier in the year. And rightly in my view laanwj didn't succumb to that pressure as there should be separation between Core and BIPs

2021-12-01

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c771ee8 fanquake: doc: use BIP125-replaceable

2021-11-28

<sipa> jeremyrubin: are you aware of BIP113 ?

2021-11-20

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv opened pull request #23561: BIP324 handshake prerequisites (master...bip324-handshake) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23561

2021-11-18

<achow101> the PR follows the existing BIP16Exception cde
<sipa> bip30 and bip34 have exceptions

2021-11-16

<sipa> (disclaimer, i'm biased, because i'm one of the co-authors of BIPs 340,341,342)
<sipa> BIPs are just published ideas
<sipa> but again, BIPs are just ways for people to publish ideas; the procedure for creating one is in BIP2
<sipa> BIPs are usually discussed on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev
<sipa> the BIP repo itself is https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
<sipa> here is the list of the ones implemented in Bitcoin Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md
<sipa> not all BIPs are implemented by bitcoin core, and not all are intended to
<sipa> in short: BIPs are just documents people publish; they aren't approved - people choose to implement them, or not
<sipa> (and its predecessor BIP1)
<sipa> read BIP2

2021-11-15

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2478c67 Pieter Wuille: Make signing follow BIP340 exactly w.r.t. aux randomness

2021-11-12

<sipa> (similar to the BIP37 dos potential)

2021-11-08

<Chris_Stewart_5> Perhaps it would be useful to link that here for future readers? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki#test-vectors
<sipa> # == Test that BIP341 spending only applies to witness version 1, program length 32, no P2SH ==
<Chris_Stewart_5> 3. When looking at BIP341 you confirm that for future soft fork extensibility you have p2sh(witSPKV1) is trivially true
<sipa> yes, in bip341/bip342, the sighash algorithm is a function of all utxos spent by the entire transaction
<Chris_Stewart_5> I'm attempting to work through test cases for BIP341 (script_assets_test.json), what is this scriptSig? The comment next to it is "comment": "legacy/pk-wrongkey" and the output script is p2sh, here is the scriptSig: 47304402204d87b96e7f61a568c98e329d1de4e065b1a3fd79323db707dfbe41216d7316f002201882165181d5f79bdb90c3d7f19bac0d1488b2e1bb8e4d217658e7eaf102e3d28143410442f7110c668193b072c2ac20b92ef6127383c166ea8d

2021-11-04

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv closed pull request #23440: Bip324 ellsq buildwoes (master...bip324-ellsq-buildwoes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23440
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv opened pull request #23440: Bip324 ellsq buildwoes (master...bip324-ellsq-buildwoes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23440
<yanmaani> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1223 what's going on with this PR

2021-11-03

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv opened pull request #23432: BIP324: CPubKey encode/decode to elligator-squared (master...bip324-ellsq) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23432

2021-11-02

<sipa> BIP14 is about separating the protocol version from the implementation version
<satoshi> BIP 14: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0014.mediawiki should be followed. Changing from 0.21.x to 22.x is disruptive.
<satoshi> Bitcoin 0.1.0 : static const int VERSION = 101; Bitcoin 0.3.0 : static const int VERSION = 300; Bitcoin 0.10.0 : return strprintf("%d.%d.%d", nVersion / 1000000, (nVersion / 10000) % 100, (nVersion / 100) % 100); Additional: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0014.mediawiki
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #23410: doc: Add output script descriptors BIPs 380..386 (master...211101-bips) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23410
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c02a674 Hennadii Stepanov: doc: Add output script descriptors BIPs 380..386
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 76886ce MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#23410: doc: Add output script descriptors BIPs 380.....

2021-11-01

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #23410: doc: Add output script descriptors BIPs 380..386 (master...211101-bips) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23410
<hebasto> sipa: is it a time to mention BIPs 380..386 in the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md ?

2021-10-26

<sipa> theStack: BIP341 has recommendations

2021-10-22

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23121 | [policy] check ancestor feerate in RBF, remove BIP125 Rule2 by glozow · Pull Request #23121 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2021-10-21

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23121 | [policy] check ancestor feerate in RBF, remove BIP125 Rule2 by glozow · Pull Request #23121 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #23267: test: bip125-replaceable in listsinceblock (master...2021-10-test-bip125-listsinceblock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23267
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b7884dd brunoerg: test: bip125-replaceable in listsinceblock
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 88fc795 MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#23267: test: bip125-replaceable in listsinceblock

2021-10-12

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] brunoerg opened pull request #23267: test: bip125-replaceable in listsinceblock (master...2021-10-test-bip125-listsinceblock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23267

2021-10-11

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #23199: refactor: use `{Read,Write}BE32` helpers for BIP32 nChild (de)serialization (master...202110-refactor-use_be32_helpers_for_bip32_nchild) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23199
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7fc487a Sebastian Falbesoner: refactor: use `{Read,Write}BE32` helpers for BIP32 nChild (de)serialization

2021-10-05

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #23199: refactor: use `{Read,Write}BE32` helpers for BIP32 nChild (de)serialization (master...202110-refactor-use_be32_helpers_for_bip32_nchild) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23199
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23121 | [policy] check ancestor feerate in RBF, remove BIP125 Rule2 by glozow · Pull Request #23121 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23121 | [policy] check ancestor feerate in RBF, remove BIP125 Rule2 by glozow · Pull Request #23121 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2021-09-30

<luke-jr> fanquake merged the BIP9 consensus change without community consensus, he shouldn't have any access at this point

2021-09-28

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #23121: [policy] check ancestor feerate in RBF, remove BIP125 Rule2 (master...ancestorscore-remove-bip1252) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23121

2021-09-27

<sipa> no, because those are actually illegal per BIP141
<sipa> (you should support sending to any valid BIP350 address)
<sipa> i think that taproot scriptPubKeys to BIP341/BIP342 (for specific keys, scripts) would be useful, though
<sipa> pinheadmz: all the examples in BIP350 under "Test vectors for v0-v16 native segregated witness addresses" should be valid addresses; only a few are taproot ones though
<pinheadmz> Are there test vectors anywhere for Taproot addresses specifically? I've got the bech32m tests from BIP350 but they are abstract and some aren't actually valid BIP341 addresses (data too long etc)

2021-09-23

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.21 f78570e Pieter Wuille: doc: mention bech32m/BIP350 in doc/descriptors.md

2021-09-14

<sipa> at least with the BIP340 default nonce function, k=0 will +-never be reached

2021-09-10

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7b60c02 glozow: MOVEONLY: BIP125 Rule 2 to policy/rbf

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 ...
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22836: Stricter BIP32 decoding and test vector 5 (master...202108_bipvec5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22836
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 01fa148 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22836: Stricter BIP32 decoding and test vector 5
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 56a42f1 Pieter Wuille: Stricter BIP32 decoding and test vector 5
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22837: doc: mention bech32m/BIP350 in doc/descriptors.md (master...202108_bip350descdoc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22837
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dc9ffb6 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22837: doc: mention bech32m/BIP350 in doc/descriptor...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d2a09c8 Pieter Wuille: doc: mention bech32m/BIP350 in doc/descriptors.md

2021-08-31

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22796: RBF move (1/3): extract BIP125 Rule 5 into policy/rbf (master...2021-08-rbf-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22796
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b001b9f glozow: MOVEONLY: BIP125 max conflicts limit to policy/rbf.h

2021-08-30

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #22837: doc: mention bech32m/BIP350 in doc/descriptors.md (master...202108_bip350descdoc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22837
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #22836: Stricter BIP32 decoding and test vector 5 (master...202108_bipvec5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22836

2021-08-27

<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 adccbb3 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21862: test: Set regtest.BIP65Height = 111 to speed ...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faf7e48 MarcoFalke: Set regtest.BIP65Height = 111 to speed up tests
<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

2021-08-18

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #14032: Add p2p layer encryption with ECDH/ChaCha20Poly1305 (master...2018/08/bip151) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14032
<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