Skip to content

bip-0054: update forward compat section with Bitcoin Core v30 #2044

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
murchandamus merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2025
Merged

bip-0054: update forward compat section with Bitcoin Core v30 #2044

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 3 additions & 4 deletions bip-0054.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -143,10 +143,8 @@ the grace period used in this proposal, miners should use the `curtime` or `mint
according to this proposal. Note this is not a new requirement: using a timestamp lower than the
`mintime` field from the `getblocktemplate` result already leads to creating an invalid block.

Bitcoin Core as of version 29.0 may relay and create a block template including a transaction that
violates the signature operations limit introduced in this BIP. A newer version of Bitcoin Core
that makes this type of transaction non-standard should be widely adopted before this soft fork is
considered for activation.
Bitcoin Core version [30.0][Core 30.0] and later will not generate a block template including a
transaction that violates the signature operations limit introduced in this BIP.
Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
transaction that violates the signature operations limit introduced in this BIP.
transaction that violates the signature operations limit introduced in this BIP (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521).

Do you think it would be useful to link to bitcoin/bitcoin#32521 here?

Copy link
Member Author

@darosior darosior Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah i thought about it but figured it was superfluous to link to implementation details.

Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack Nov 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is a rough threshold for "widely adopted" and, depending on what it is relative to current v30 adoption, should a mention about adoption remain for now?

Copy link
Member Author

@darosior darosior Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure what's a good threshold to give. Ideally all of them would be upgraded before activation, but you also do not want to give a too small minority of miners a veto power over consensus changes.

If something is to be kept it should apply to the whole section really, although the two most concerning items are the coinbase restriction and this one. I'm not sure. On the other hand having a whole section about miner forward compatibility sort of speaks for itself.


Bitcoin Core version [0.16.1][Core 0.16.1] and later will neither relay nor create block templates
that include 64-byte transactions.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -245,3 +243,4 @@ notably of Bitcoin Core but also of all other implementations the authors are aw
[Core 0.16.1]: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.16.1
[Core 29.0]: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/29.0
[inquisition-implem]: https://github.com/darosior/bitcoin/tree/2509_inquisition_consensus_cleanup
[Core 30.0]: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/30.0