tl;dr: I don't think CTV is ready yet (but probably close), and in any case
definitely not worth reviving BIP 9 with its known flaws and vulnerability.
My review here is based solely on the BIP, with no outside context (aside from
current consensus rules, of course). In particular, I have _not_
utright deception around this one topic has led to significant
unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it
honestly.
e
> -Original Message-
> From: bitcoin-dev On
Behalf
> Of Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:19 PM
>
On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 e...@voskuil.org wrote:
> The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may
> activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.
>
> As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a chain
> split.
Enforceme
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Dashjr
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:10 PM
> To: e...@voskuil.org
> Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
>
> On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 e...@voskuil.org wrote:
Hi Luke,
This is the first competent review for CTV based on my understanding. I would
not mention controversial things in this email but nobody cares about scammers
and we will review everything irrespective of personal or legal attacks on
developers because some people are prepared for it and
Thanks for the detailed review.
I'll withhold comment around activation logic and leave that for others to
discuss.
w.r.t. the language cleanups I'll make a PR that (I hope) clears up the
small nits later today or tomorrow. Some of it's kind of annoying because
the legal definition of covenant is
Hey Jeremy,
> On the topic of drafting BIPs for specific use cases, I agree that would
be valuable and can consider it.
> However, I'm a bit skeptical of that approach overall as I don't
necessarily think that the applications *must be* standard, and I view BIPs
as primarily for standardization wh
wrote:
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:10 PM
>
> To: e...@voskuil.org
>
> Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP
tion.org> wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:10 PM
> >
> > To: e...@voskuil.org
> >
> > Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 03:54:21PM -0800, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Some of it's kind of annoying because
> the legal definition of covenant is [...]
> so I do think things like CLTV/CSV are covenants
I think that in the context of Bitcoin, the most useful definition of
covenant is that it's
> BIP8 is also BIP9 based, and ST is its own thing that's neither BIP8 nor
> BIP9, so characterization one way or another is moot IMO.
For a selective definition of “based” you can draw any conclusion you desire.
However I was very clear, as was Luke, and the history on this issue is equally
> the **only** material distinction (and the one that we are discussing)
is activation with or without majority hash power support
I agree that characterization specifically is not moot. But its also
orthogonal to the topic of the CTV opcode itself.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:03 PM wrote:
> > B
12 matches
Mail list logo
