<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).
<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
<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.
<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...
<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
<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
<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 ...
<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>
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
< luke-jr>
ST/BIP8 had (has?) widespread support, not ST/BIP9
< 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>
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?
< jeremyrubin>
Maybe remove BIP8 LOT=true?
< 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
< wumpus>
#topic Attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8 (luke-jr)
< core-meetingbot>
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