path: root/01/764d02a144739e263a46f8be8bfd4d0b3cd825

Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5052EC002F
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:03:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id y27so2897992pfa.0
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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: <eric@voskuil.org>
To: "'Billy Tetrud'" <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>,
 "'Michael Folkson'" <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>,
 "'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org>
 <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org>
 <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org>
 <000601d80cbf$2f6a1d80$8e3e5880$@voskuil.org>
 <up51VtT2s-vcSvah3qiIm8G3KHjcnE5AwZLpTpe_CwRUgrWNJC8BvKFK0vHtYqzh1kTFtVVVLE0lXqBBBVhRR2Rkm3uFbp-Xmqs0KZ4gTUo=@protonmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDZiNiBoq9KNh8TsZC8fQTNsP5iVZnX2NHwN9x7dSPZmFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDZiNiBoq9KNh8TsZC8fQTNsP5iVZnX2NHwN9x7dSPZmFQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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 <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>=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  <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377> =
"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

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta =
name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered =
medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'word-wrap:break-word'><div =
class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 =
face=3DCalibri><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'>&gt; </span>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.<o:p></o:p></font></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'>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 *<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>only</span></b>* =
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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'>e</span></font><o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p><div =
style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt'><div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 =
face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b> =
Billy Tetrud &lt;billy.tetrud@gmail.com&gt; <br><b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, January 20, 2022 =
7:23 AM<br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><font =
size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'>Thank you Eric =
for pointing out the factual errors in LukeJr's mention and implications =
around BIP8. The fact is that the <a =
href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377">ST pull request =
was described as &quot;BIP9-based&quot;</a>. 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&nbsp;reduce noise in =
conversations.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p></div><div>=
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><div=
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'>BT<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p></div></div=
></div></div></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_0175_01D80E06.782EB830--