<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>
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 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.
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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/master e97e3de laanwj: doc: Update bips.md for 23.x
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 03bc08e laanwj: doc: Mention missing BIP157 in bips.md
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.
<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
<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 6535772 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#23882: doc: testnet3 was not reset and is doing BIP3...
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fa1a51c MarcoFalke: doc: testnet3 was not reset and is doing BIP30 checks again
<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 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
<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 ad0fc45 MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#16333: test: Set BIP34Height = 2 for regtest
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 222290f MarcoFalke: 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>
but you're free not to implement BIP339
< sipa>
in order to implement BIP339 you must send wtxidrelay
< 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/master faf30f2 MarcoFalke: doc: Update bips.md for 0.21.1
< 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.