Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C9BC002F for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B273C60F7C for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LY9eRPDhz93y for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E7260F7B for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id ah7so2028556ejc.4 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:36:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GSG8CJAVEAYydnT1+/8H+Sahwt5mvrDXNXsJ+ajcgwY=; b=eXO5wFjCAFrUDY/z+omTc70HXpUV9xJ14Qn3x5bezYk8ZxWFYYaO8otYWKs4z+6cVV A7680RnRNl8kxc7I5fX/gOwvbl+ytsR5KpBRO8DKygfsrLCUe5Ej0hQzmi8cLIhAJ0rx K8WFtt6CIQtatYjpIFpfHk/j0E91/Xt4KcSYHGdMV4Xu5vclnlCoKS/YF4x3ZNcVcrtE LIdVwLfqeofI5CO2ihVg5ve3ocDbf6tvco1bduIhOq8y/pjBGxZxJa84cOMzCBzm1oor EoRPgIBOGqtB2bRBA0CP8KNSW4Ku8lYHF5Ei91DLvnLVO2snf7pEBBm23cN112rAICcx s4mg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GSG8CJAVEAYydnT1+/8H+Sahwt5mvrDXNXsJ+ajcgwY=; b=Sh9vnn47Hrjime26gtnqyYb3ZSs/1is57vK275yD90vZR4VnkD0t6lexqu7JkUvaV3 H+FCtSe/m/mOouid9KJfpzoEsAT1xn+wyKgC10dUn/q9mekMtA16drsiCxVlTRHbzoTm ID2lmRE9mxsJENS+ehZ5tTVWa/b7jSpBBUduyack8YabXHezTyNnG1kV/z+zqSvb+asi W1JTbQDF6LX/YTBxgt4PhKY3kkb8u0+D9gZqCV1/lfQCEL5KungwsEHGgb8bvyJlKRc8 KM/xuPgbLWYTkD6OyNuOsIKhGoZr7zIykqaw+Dr+L2IM8ZZgcQeexswR42yl9dVAmVYZ 4Sng== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ePYrSzFTtKp1FV+tA/Mw5t+koUtDwM9iou7yiZTWZ4JdSUSmg XjoAG+XUuqfKF5AHD1TN+oAlwQU4j3iMIYbcuXRL3JO8SAE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJAr/jT4Q0CC2RfXASUaQtd5HR4NnsLFtDOAAjaC0Fk8kqxeKecdub8aHnRe8jMII7Soqj+gFUEHNP+JsHM18= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9754:: with SMTP id o20mr4464972ejy.452.1642786590430; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:36:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org> <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org> <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org> <000601d80cbf$2f6a1d80$8e3e5880$@voskuil.org> <017401d80e49$864fd550$92ef7ff0$@voskuil.org> In-Reply-To: <017401d80e49$864fd550$92ef7ff0$@voskuil.org> From: Billy Tetrud Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 11:36:13 -0600 Message-ID: To: Eric Voskuil Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:52:57 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:34 -0000 --0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 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: > > 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 co= nclusion 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 > *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 AM > > Thank you Eric for pointing out the factual errors in LukeJr's mention an= d > 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 wha= t > types of activation methods are possible (if some types aren't possible f= or > some reason). Separation of concerns would be very useful on that front > to reduce noise in conversations. > > > > Thanks, > > BT > > > --0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0 the *only* material distinction (and the one that= we are discussing) is activation with or without majority hash power suppo= rt

<= /span>
I = agree that characterization specifically is not moot. But its also orthogon= al to the topic of the CTV opcode itself.=C2=A0

On Thu, Jan 20,= 2022 at 4:03 PM <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:

> BIP8 is also B= IP9 based, and ST is its own thing that's neither BIP8 nor BIP9, so cha= racterization one way or another is moot IMO.

=C2=A0

For a selective = definition of =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D you can draw any conclusion you desir= e. 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 a= nd always has been. There was no compromise on this question made in Taproo= t.

=C2=A0<= /font>

e

=C2=A0

From: Billy= Tetrud <bil= ly.tetrud@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 AM

Thank you Eric for pointing out the factual errors in L= ukeJr'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 ch= aracterization one way or another is moot IMO. In any case, I also agree wi= th Michael that this isn't the place to have a long discussion about ac= tivation 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 a= re possible (if some types aren't possible for some reason). Separation= of concerns would be very useful on that front to=C2=A0reduce noise in con= versations.

= =C2=A0

Thanks,

BT<= /p>

=C2=A0

--0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc--