doc: Update bips.md for 0.19 #16997
Merged
doc: Update bips.md for 0.19 #16997
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
ACK bcdab14 |
Yes, but whether to put it under BIP9 or the affected deployment BIPs? |
|
It could be appended to each deployment, similar to how ab0c35a did it. |
4513d3b to
c43b99f
Compare
c43b99f to
4cadf01
Compare
|
|
|
A few potential improvements:
|
maflcko
reviewed
Sep 30, 2019
doc/bips.md
Outdated
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| BIPs that are implemented by Bitcoin Core (up-to-date up to **v0.18.0**): | |||
|
|
|||
| * [`BIP 9`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki): The changes allowing multiple soft-forks to be deployed in parallel have been implemented since **v0.12.1** ([PR #7575](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7575)) | |||
| * [`BIP 9`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki): The changes allowing multiple soft-forks to be deployed in parallel have been implemented since **v0.12.1** ([PR #7575](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7575)). The BIP 9 activation for BIPs 34, 65 and 66 was buried (hardcoded) in *v0.19.0* ([PR #16060](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16060)). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No strong opinion, but the fact that BIP 9 was responsible for their activation might be controversial. See e.g. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-August/017267.html
doc/bips.md
Outdated
| @@ -11,15 +11,15 @@ BIPs that are implemented by Bitcoin Core (up-to-date up to **v0.18.0**): | |||
| * [`BIP 30`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki): The evaluation rules to forbid creating new transactions with the same txid as previous not-fully-spent transactions were implemented since **v0.6.0**, and the rule took effect on *March 15th 2012* ([PR #915](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/915)). | |||
| * [`BIP 31`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0031.mediawiki): The 'pong' protocol message (and the protocol version bump to 60001) has been implemented since **v0.6.1** ([PR #1081](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1081)). | |||
| * [`BIP 32`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki): Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets has been implemented since **v0.13.0** ([PR #8035](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8035)). | |||
| * [`BIP 34`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki): The rule that requires blocks to contain their height (number) in the coinbase input, and the introduction of version 2 blocks has been implemented since **v0.7.0**. The rule took effect for version 2 blocks as of *block 224413* (March 5th 2013), and version 1 blocks are no longer allowed since *block 227931* (March 25th 2013) ([PR #1526](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1526)). | |||
| * [`BIP 34`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki): The rule that requires blocks to contain their height (number) in the coinbase input, and the introduction of version 2 blocks has been implemented since **v0.7.0**. The rule took effect for version 2 blocks as of *block 224413* (March 5th 2013), and version 1 blocks are no longer allowed since *block 227931* (March 25th 2013) ([PR #1526](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1526)). The BIP 9 activation for this softfork was buried (hardcoded) in *v0.19.0* ([PR #16060](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16060)). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
bip 34 was buried in bip 90 (a different pull request). See e.g #9879
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, will revert that change.
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
4cadf01 to
b11514d
Compare
|
I've removed the commit about the BIP 9 deployments, will leave writing that to someone else. Edit: @Sjors thanks, added. |
|
ACK 82c1177 |
hebasto
reviewed
Sep 30, 2019
Might want to mention the version bump in the release process? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md#before-every-major-and-minor-release |
|
ACK 60e855f |
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2019
60e855f doc: Bump version in bips.md, mention bumping in release process (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 82c1177 doc: Add mention of BIP158 indexing since v0.19.0 (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 2267006 doc: Add mention of BIP125 used by wallet GUI by default since v0.18.1 (Wladimir J. van der Laan) b11514d doc: Add mention of BIP70 disabling by default in bips.md (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Pull request description: - Add mention of BIP70 disabling by default at build time. Any others? E.g. does the burying of deployments of #16060 need to be mentioned? If so, where and how? For all of BIPs 34, 65 and 66? ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK 60e855f Tree-SHA512: 76aac3118bb9b56eeea75d046a55d8678a4c5c43004bec98a653f285ef59c34e67af01b0af3ddcefe4e92d37eea89f4f6627e4d056194f54e2e6168c79b4865c
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2019
60e855f doc: Bump version in bips.md, mention bumping in release process (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 82c1177 doc: Add mention of BIP158 indexing since v0.19.0 (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 2267006 doc: Add mention of BIP125 used by wallet GUI by default since v0.18.1 (Wladimir J. van der Laan) b11514d doc: Add mention of BIP70 disabling by default in bips.md (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Pull request description: - Add mention of BIP70 disabling by default at build time. Any others? E.g. does the burying of deployments of bitcoin#16060 need to be mentioned? If so, where and how? For all of BIPs 34, 65 and 66? ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK 60e855f Tree-SHA512: 76aac3118bb9b56eeea75d046a55d8678a4c5c43004bec98a653f285ef59c34e67af01b0af3ddcefe4e92d37eea89f4f6627e4d056194f54e2e6168c79b4865c
Munkybooty
pushed a commit
to Munkybooty/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2021
60e855f doc: Bump version in bips.md, mention bumping in release process (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 82c1177 doc: Add mention of BIP158 indexing since v0.19.0 (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 2267006 doc: Add mention of BIP125 used by wallet GUI by default since v0.18.1 (Wladimir J. van der Laan) b11514d doc: Add mention of BIP70 disabling by default in bips.md (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Pull request description: - Add mention of BIP70 disabling by default at build time. Any others? E.g. does the burying of deployments of bitcoin#16060 need to be mentioned? If so, where and how? For all of BIPs 34, 65 and 66? ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK 60e855f Tree-SHA512: 76aac3118bb9b56eeea75d046a55d8678a4c5c43004bec98a653f285ef59c34e67af01b0af3ddcefe4e92d37eea89f4f6627e4d056194f54e2e6168c79b4865c
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Any others?
E.g. does the burying of deployments of #16060 need to be mentioned? If so, where and how? For all of BIPs 34, 65 and 66?