Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-21 Thread Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
> 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: > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-20 Thread Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-20 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-20 Thread Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
- > > > > 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 B

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-19 Thread Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
: > -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 review > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-19 Thread Alex Schoof via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-18 Thread Jeremy via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-18 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-18 Thread Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> -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: > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-18 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
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.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-18 Thread Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
ption 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 > To: bitcoin-dev

[bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review

2022-01-18 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
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_