Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5052EC002F for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3116240904 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:03:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EgWqCAljsJ4E for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:03:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 444A0408A2 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id y27so2897992pfa.0 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:03:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=b7coAadolbbApjIm4dv5ZFjDlilhTm4EUgDfW66shRg=; b=IAVx9sXH0RGOSiwWM3R+msctpXz6m998IXqc9QzA14SviZRRzzqgKKDamhEODat+CN u1C5r+usPU6FqeMvVJWwdoyz6sbm/tvdUlIBhr+8fopa19hFKOTCDvMebKyB9eudLSXu UPiJ60FcLOEWirJLiuh/pxptpyjKUVFeeT/1I+m3b5PPhx6jBiehmiTKipFTUKdeLPfg Wel/LU+A2abb0866SzO5lXxIMSm7HZhVmIi44bCAfWMzklTr6oi8kVq0U/ksyrhmgQtF mP7NKNPbe+F57TUkVDQW6QiOVehLGAgdAtTCK0bAQp38PaFHVrabOAHwPpRYlHdSdJWZ HEKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=b7coAadolbbApjIm4dv5ZFjDlilhTm4EUgDfW66shRg=; b=Tg8giPAZy2EblKTFEHToXKgBS/D/9l714w4qO4PZhChSgfaPQPAbVqYypHFeI/H904 ZUzs1RtzjaA2i4MBz3VZ1GH4gaxOHH8v3CxqH7Wp2MuOCHv6F/yvYF0GQlcOH/058dRA TaScmmti6hVi+DYlrBZFXNLeH/EifYB+4BY0boJJYofGiE9OhYfiBZqjRhU7sOwzd/bm DqaU1OjEn4qA3t9bp4cfTMyAzrLq3x87jo3c+otCX/dUfdqQfdviZ6szOMkpn30hORM5 SfRN69xyQILKm1jIfM/2lQkV5wzuSwumg0QHPC4BA76P/HG61OCEYk9G0B1Pa2pRR4Q8 o+Cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311+Rq7EBQBZZ1pPQpq+y0q2E2/2Z3Fc3V5j8FUEGx/ymQHbUBU +fvdftEb8Cc8EbCTbENzXUWAiW1729U7UA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyndAx/NuIlbeBD0mEdDdpzDhQehDuPNxaLZLyQXeT7O+UcaCHJGTh7BhTXAW/IxaeC97XkvA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:88f:b0:4bc:3b4e:255a with SMTP id q15-20020a056a00088f00b004bc3b4e255amr998985pfj.79.1642716195514; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:03:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ERICDESKTOP ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::4623]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t3sm4620348pfg.28.2022.01.20.14.03.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:03:14 -0800 (PST) From: To: "'Billy Tetrud'" , "'Michael Folkson'" , "'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'" References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org> <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org> <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org> <000601d80cbf$2f6a1d80$8e3e5880$@voskuil.org> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:03:14 -0800 Message-ID: <017401d80e49$864fd550$92ef7ff0$@voskuil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0175_01D80E06.782EB830" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIXp3h1JQb5nuD7yIsGg/xB1hoY6AJU85EwAf0Gwt8B4EKgUgLNvMKsAppNE2WrkGyY8A== Content-Language: en-us Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:03:19 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0175_01D80E06.782EB830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 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. =20 For a selective definition of =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D 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. =20 e =20 From: Billy Tetrud =20 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". 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. =20 Thanks, BT =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0175_01D80E06.782EB830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> 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 = =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D 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". 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

 

------=_NextPart_000_0175_01D80E06.782EB830--