📅 Original date posted:2022-01-21
📝 Original message:> 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 at 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 at 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220121/67f2c1ed/attachment-0001.html>;
Billy Tetrud [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…tcnns
2023-06-07 23:02:34
in reply to nevent1q…9n7j
Author Public Key
npub1xqcwcttsyk0a64d63crrwsxp88pa42np37rw87hrfn4uku78g2aqltcnnsPublished at
2023-06-07 23:02:34Event JSON
{
"id": "619d2fcf97b6b088a1fd15dc68284ce7279dec06273f2fcbe5ac186a80f412cf",
"pubkey": "3030ec2d70259fdd55ba8e063740c139c3daaa618f86e3fae34cebcb73c742ba",
"created_at": 1686178954,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"03da030e3b313ae60c6ce63f7e2349e6c30d49bd45d38ae242a67e28557d2786",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"806a4fe71786bbb4b6797136a5084ca7c547117ae18f6e6926bdaaa4b5d762c9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c6b6b98622ba25104591136013eadc67e5a75a9327400cb9f2b9ac5027462c3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-01-21\n📝 Original message:\u003e the **only** material distinction (and the one that we are discussing)\nis activation with or without majority hash power support\n\nI agree that characterization specifically is not moot. But its also\northogonal to the topic of the CTV opcode itself.\n\nOn Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:03 PM \u003ceric at voskuil.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e BIP8 is also BIP9 based, and ST is its own thing that's neither BIP8\n\u003e nor BIP9, so characterization one way or another is moot IMO.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e For a selective definition of “based” you can draw any conclusion you\n\u003e desire. However I was very clear, as was Luke, and the history on this\n\u003e issue is equally clear, that the **only** material distinction (and the\n\u003e one that we are discussing) is activation with or without majority hash\n\u003e power support. BIP9/ST requires this support, BIP8 does not. The\n\u003e characterization is not moot. It is the central issue and always has been.\n\u003e There was no compromise on this question made in Taproot.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e *From:* Billy Tetrud \u003cbilly.tetrud at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 AM\n\u003e\n\u003e Thank you Eric for pointing out the factual errors in LukeJr's mention and\n\u003e implications around BIP8. The fact is that the ST pull request was\n\u003e described as \"BIP9-based\" \u003chttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377\u003e.\n\u003e TBH BIP8 is also BIP9 based, and ST is its own thing that's neither BIP8\n\u003e nor BIP9, so characterization one way or another is moot IMO. In any case,\n\u003e I also agree with Michael that this isn't the place to have a long\n\u003e discussion about activation method. That discussion should be kept\n\u003e separate. I'd go so far to say that BIPs should not advocate for any\n\u003e particular activation method, but should only go so far as to mention what\n\u003e types of activation methods are possible (if some types aren't possible for\n\u003e some reason). Separation of concerns would be very useful on that front\n\u003e to reduce noise in conversations.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Thanks,\n\u003e\n\u003e BT\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220121/67f2c1ed/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "cc787d68f9b3c08fa004d3ff5ce1d514e24e645506ed6c4946207b8ac1122f715170a13a0378bf9db276acd4b7b717017cd6ef1ca4eabc550c0b8a2b91d395fa"
}