From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail•com>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 11:36:13 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDa_A=DLW6cgGin0RjeQWOdDyhG8uz+3ZaegYyUFyp-=mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <017401d80e49$864fd550$92ef7ff0$@voskuil.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1996 bytes --]
> 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 <eric@voskuil•org> wrote:
> > 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 clear, that the **only** material distinction (and the
> one that we are discussing) is activation with or without majority hash
> power support. BIP9/ST requires this support, BIP8 does not. The
> characterization is not moot. It is the central issue and always has been.
> There was no compromise on this question made in Taproot.
>
>
>
> e
>
>
>
> *From:* Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail•com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 AM
>
> Thank you Eric for pointing out the factual errors in LukeJr's mention and
> implications around BIP8. The fact is that the ST pull request was
> described as "BIP9-based" <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377>.
> TBH 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. In any case,
> I also agree with Michael that this isn't the place to have a long
> discussion about activation method. That discussion should be kept
> separate. I'd go so far to say that BIPs should not advocate for any
> particular activation method, but should only go so far as to mention what
> types of activation methods are possible (if some types aren't possible for
> some reason). Separation of concerns would be very useful on that front
> to reduce noise in conversations.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> BT
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4385 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-21 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-18 21:19 Luke Dashjr
2022-01-18 22:02 ` eric
2022-01-18 22:09 ` Luke Dashjr
2022-01-18 23:00 ` eric
2022-01-19 12:02 ` Michael Folkson
2022-01-20 15:23 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-20 22:03 ` eric
2022-01-21 17:36 ` Billy Tetrud [this message]
2022-01-18 23:54 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19 0:37 ` Alex Schoof
2022-01-20 18:38 ` Anthony Towns
2022-01-18 22:20 Prayank
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAGpPWDa_A=DLW6cgGin0RjeQWOdDyhG8uz+3ZaegYyUFyp-=mw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=billy.tetrud@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox