Antoine Poinsot
47a2d72539
bip-0054: less redundancy in 64-byte rationale, move caching risk to footnote
2026-05-19 09:58:44 -04:00
Antoine Poinsot
8ae3af58e0
bip-0054: state explicitly fake inclusion proofs only concern SPV verifier
2026-05-15 10:51:01 -04:00
Antoine Poinsot
5c67f90fa8
bip-0054: clarify rationale for invalidating 64-byte txs
...
As Eric points out on the mailing list: 1. the rationale section should mention and address the
"seam" objection directly rather than burying it in a footnote; 2. the full node consensus split
issue should not be used as sole rationale for invalidating 64-byte txs (but it's fair to point out
it's fixed as a nice to have byproduct).
ML thread: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/43996cb3-9133-4627-8944-5fe08427be68n@googlegroups.com/T/#md66e252f0748f4ef7569d5e15d42631e12b66c0b ,
2026-05-14 09:09:56 -04:00
Antoine Poinsot
346f93844f
bip-0054: spell out in more places that 64 bytes is for witness-stripped size
2026-05-12 07:06:15 -04:00
nervana21
acf99fc160
BIP 54: grammar improvements ( #2151 )
...
* bip54: Clarify deployment cost wording
* bip54: Clarify merkle tree wording
* bip54: Clarify sigops wording
* bip54: Clarify timewarp wording
* bip54: Clarify miner preparation cost wording
2026-05-07 12:24:34 +02:00
Murch
442e9628b3
Eliminate remaining "user-content" anchor links
2026-04-27 17:29:24 -07:00
Antoine Poinsot
1f21139957
bip54: expand on rationale for non-final coinbase nSequence
...
Making sure that the coinbase is timelocked is a neat simplification in reasoning about duplicates,
but it has caused some confusions. For instance here:
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/e758af9b-72fc-4fdd-8e07-e1126635780an@googlegroups.com/
Fix this by explicitly stating the implications.
2026-03-13 14:21:41 -04:00
Antoine Poinsot
aef4d9e084
bip54: reword "potentially executed" language in sigops limit specification
...
The paragraph in its entirety is already unambiguous that all signature-checking operations
*present* in the Script (as opposed to *executed*) are counted. However i received feedback that the
"potentially executed" language in the first sentence of this paragraph may be confusing. This is
because it is in theory possible to have a more accurate upper bound by analyzing the possible
spending paths and use the maximum number of signature-checking operations in either to check
against the limit.
This commit rewords the first sentence to use the word "present" to be extra-clear before even
describing how the accounting is performed in later sentences.
2026-03-13 11:14:20 -04:00
Murch
24e96e870f
process: Created ↦ Assigned
...
```
sed -z -i 's/Created: /Assigned: /' bip-0*.md
sed -z -i 's/Created: /Assigned: /' bip-0*.mediawiki
```
2026-01-12 14:29:51 -08:00
Murch
5207ef92a5
process: Author ↦ Authors
...
```
sed -z -i 's/Author: /Authors: /' bip-0*.md
sed -z -i 's/Author: /Authors: /' bip-0*.mediawiki
```
Also align correctly in case of multiple authors.
2026-01-12 14:29:00 -08:00
Murch
59730dec4f
process: Remove Comments-URI and -Summary
...
```
sed -i '0,/Comments-Summary/{/Comments-Summary/d}' bip-0*md
sed -i '0,/Comments-Summary/{/Comments-Summary/d}' bip-0*mediawiki
sed -i '0,/Comments-URI/{/Comments-URI/d}' bip-0*md
sed -i '0,/Comments-URI/{/Comments-URI/d}' bip-0*mediawiki
```
Then reset the BIPs with non-empty comment wikis:
- bip-0037.mediawiki
- bip-0038.mediawiki
- bip-0039.mediawiki
- bip-0042.mediawiki
- bip-0044.mediawiki
- bip-0047.mediawiki
- bip-0049.mediawiki
- bip-0060.mediawiki
- bip-0061.mediawiki
- bip-0074.mediawiki
- bip-0075.mediawiki
- bip-0077.md
- bip-0084.mediawiki
- bip-0090.mediawiki
- bip-0118.mediawiki
- bip-0125.mediawiki
- bip-0150.mediawiki
- bip-0151.mediawiki
- bip-0152.mediawiki
- bip-0171.mediawiki
- bip-0172.mediawiki
- bip-0173.mediawiki
- bip-0174.mediawiki
- bip-0176.mediawiki
- bip-0178.mediawiki
- bip-0199.mediawiki
- bip-0322.mediawiki
- bip-0340.mediawiki
- bip-0341.mediawiki
2026-01-12 14:28:37 -08:00
Murch
a233bde4af
process: Standards Track ↦ Specification
...
```
sed -z -i 's/Type: Standards Track/Type: Specification/' bip-0*.md
sed -z -i 's/Type: Standards Track/Type: Specification/' bip-0*.mediawiki
```
After the scripted changes, the changes to BIP-40, BIP-41, and BIP-63
were undone, because it breaks CI.
These three BIPs only exist conceptually and their proposal documents
are missing which causes changes to them ot break the CI. I defer the
changes to these BIPs to a separate pull request to get CI to pass.
2026-01-12 14:22:40 -08:00
Antoine Poinsot
1076d90678
bip-0054: update forward compat section with Bitcoin Core v30
...
The BIP 54 sigops limit was made a standardness rules in Bitcoin Core 30.0.
2025-11-25 14:03:52 -05:00
Jon Atack
2624ef7b83
Merge pull request #2015 from darosior/2509_consensus_cleanup_test_vectors
...
BIP54: Consensus Cleanup test vectors
2025-11-25 09:56:13 -08:00
Greg Sanders
459298ab0e
bip54: clarify sigops counting, borrow bip16 language
2025-11-14 10:18:38 -05:00
Antoine Poinsot
0777a81367
bip-0054: document the test vectors
2025-10-27 04:10:26 -04:00
Antoine Poinsot
89dfe03a64
bip-0054: add a reference implementation section
2025-10-20 08:53:51 -04:00
Antoine Poinsot
32bcfd6801
bip54: fix off-by-one in creation date
2025-09-03 16:55:29 -04:00
Antoine Poinsot
1ee43519dd
Consensus Cleanup BIP draft
2025-04-28 14:30:31 -04:00
