BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount of time had passed. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392 You are also missing BIP50: 'March 2013 Chain For Post-Mortem', which neither benefited nor improved bitcoin, but did document an event for posterity. This is not a hard fork. Removing ISM just means we've committed to those soft-forks only locking into the chain we use now. On 11/16/2016 01:58 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This sort of statement represents one consequence of the > aforementioned bad precedent. > > Are checkpoints good now? Are hard forks okay now? > > What is the maximum depth of a reorg allowed by this non-machine > consensus? > > Shouldn't we just define a max depth so that all cruft deeper than > that can just be discarded on a regular basis? > > Why are there activation heights defined by this hard fork if it's not > possible to reorg back to them? > > The "BIP" is neither a Proposal (it's been decided, just documenting > for posterity), nor an Improvement (there is no actual benefit, just > some tidying up in the notoriously obtuse satoshi code base), nor > Bitcoin (a hard fork defines an alt coin, so from Aug 4 forward it has > been CoreCoin). > > e > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 5:29 AM, Jameson Lopp > wrote: > >> Since "buried deployments" are specifically in reference to >> historical consensus changes, I think the question is more one of >> human consensus than machine consensus. Is there any disagreement >> amongst Bitcoin users that BIP34 activated at block 227931, BIP65 >> activated at block 388381, and BIP66 activated at block 363725? >> Somehow I doubt it. >> >> It seems to me that this change is merely cementing into place a few >> attributes of the blockchain's history that are not in dispute. >> >> - Jameson >> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev >> > > wrote: >> >> Actually this does nothing to provide justification for this >> consensus rule change. It is just an attempt to deflect criticism >> from the fact that it is such a change. >> >> e >> >> > On Nov 15, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Btc Drak > > wrote: >> > >> > I think this is already covered in the BIP text:- >> > >> > "As of November 2016, the most recent of these changes (BIP 65, >> > enforced since December 2015) has nearly 50,000 blocks built on >> top of >> > it. The occurrence of such a reorg that would cause the activating >> > block to be disconnected would raise fundamental concerns about the >> > security assumptions of Bitcoin, a far bigger issue than any >> > non-backwards compatible change. >> > >> > So while this proposal could theoretically result in a consensus >> > split, it is extremely unlikely, and in particular any such >> > circumstances would be sufficiently damaging to the Bitcoin >> network to >> > dwarf any concerns about the effects of this proposed change." >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev >> > > > wrote: >> >> NACK >> >> >> >> Horrible precedent (hardcoding rule changes based on the >> assumption that >> >> large forks indicate a catastrophic failure), extremely poor >> process >> >> (already shipped, now the discussion), and not even a material >> performance >> >> optimization (the checks are avoidable once activated until a >> sufficiently >> >> deep reorg deactivates them). >> >> >> >> e >> >> >> >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Recently Bitcoin Core merged a simplification to the consensus >> rules >> >> surrounding deployment of BIPs 34, 66, and 65 >> >> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391 >> ), and though the >> change is a >> >> minor one, I thought it was worth documenting the rationale in >> a BIP for >> >> posterity. >> >> >> >> Here's the abstract: >> >> >> >> Prior soft forks (BIP 34, BIP 65, and BIP 66) were activated >> via miner >> >> signaling in block version numbers. Now that the chain has >> long since passed >> >> the blocks at which those consensus rules have triggered, we >> can (as a >> >> simplification and optimization) replace the trigger mechanism >> by caching >> >> the block heights at which those consensus rules became enforced. >> >> >> >> The full draft can be found here: >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deployments.mediawiki >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev