Hi Chris,

I agree with separation.

Also I need more details as some of them could be CIA proxy and introduce 
another bug. Any change in consensus code need more discussion.

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy 

On Thursday, March 27, 2025 at 5:49:30 PM UTC+5:30 Chris Stewart wrote:

> Hi Antoine, 
>
> First off, concept ACK. My concerns are procedural rather than objections 
> to the individual security fixes themselves.
>
> The "Great Consensus Cleanup" is a fantastic brand for communicating these 
> protocol changes to non-technical users. However, since this is a technical 
> forum and we are producing BIPs intended for technical audiences, I believe 
> we should document these changes in separate BIPs.
>
> The proposed security fixes are largely unrelated from a technical 
> standpoint:
>
>    1. 
>    
>    Timewarp attack mitigation
>    2. 
>    
>    Worst-case block validation constraints
>    3. 
>    
>    Disallowing 64-byte transactions
>    4. 
>    
>    Avoiding duplicate transactions
>    
> We should absolutely retain the "Great Consensus Cleanup" branding while 
> independently documenting each security enhancement.
>
> A common concern I’ve heard about splitting this BIP is that deploying 
> soft forks is difficult, so all changes should be bundled together. While 
> soft fork deployment is indeed challenging, we've successfully activated 
> multiple BIPs within a single soft fork in the past—e.g., BIP141 and BIP143 
> in Segwit, as well as BIP341, BIP342, and BIP343 in Taproot. If the 
> community reaches consensus, we can still deploy all these changes 
> together, even if they are documented separately.
>
> This approach also provides flexibility: if one of the proposed changes 
> turns out to be controversial, we could remove it without holding up the 
> rest of the improvements. Additionally, once these fixes are deployed, 
> there will likely be significant research and documentation to incorporate, 
> and maintaining independent BIPs will make it easier to manage that growth.
>
> I do see merit in implementing all the security fixes in a single PR for 
> Bitcoin Core. More active contributors to the project may have stronger 
> opinions on the best approach there.
>
> -Chris 
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 1:23 PM 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development 
> Mailing List <bitco...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> About two months ago i shared an update on this list about my (and 
>> others', really) work on the
>> Consensus Cleanup [0]. I am now ready to share a BIP draft for a 
>> Consensus Cleanup soft fork.
>>
>> The BIP draft can be found here: 
>> https://github.com/darosior/bips/blob/consensus_cleanup/bip-cc.md
>>
>> It includes the following fixes:
>> - a restriction on the timestamp of the first and last blocks of a 
>> difficulty adjustment period to
>>   address the Timewarp and Murch-Zawy attacks;
>> - a limit on the number of legacy signature operations that may be 
>> executed in validating a single
>>   transaction to address long block validation times;
>> - making 64 bytes transactions invalid to address weaknesses in the block 
>> Merkle tree construction;
>> - mandating coinbase transactions be timelocked to their block height to 
>> prevent future transaction
>>   duplication without resorting to BIP30 validation.
>>
>> This BIP draws on the 2019 Great Consensus Cleanup proposal from Matt 
>> Corallo [1]. A number of
>> people contributed ideas, testing, data or useful discussions. This 
>> includes Ava Chow, Matt Corallo,
>> Mark Erhardt, Brian Groll, David A. Harding, Sjors Provoost, Anthony 
>> Towns, Greg Sanders, Chris
>> Stewart, Eric Voskuil, @0xb10c and others.
>>
>> Antoine Poinsot
>>
>> [0] 
>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/jiyMlvTX8BnG71f75SqChQZxyhZDQ65kldcugeIDJVJsvK4hadCO3GT46xFc7_cUlWdmOCG0B_WIz0HAO5ZugqYTuX5qxnNLRBn3MopuATI=@protonmail.com
>> [1] 
>> https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/7f9670b643b7c943a0cc6d2197d3eabe661050c2/bip-XXXX.mediawiki
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/uDAujRxk4oWnEGYX9lBD3e0V7a4V4Pd-c4-2QVybSZNcfJj5a6IbO6fCM_xEQEpBvQeOT8eIi1r91iKFIveeLIxfNMzDys77HUcbl7Zne4g%3D%40protonmail.com
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/e32b5d5c-1326-451c-b2eb-d7a92c50d9ban%40googlegroups.com.