docs: complete BIP-118 deployment section
Replaces the TODO in BIP-118 deployment section with a comprehensive deployment specification.
Hey @crStiv,
It’s not clear to me what rephrasing this section with slightly more detailed information on all the things that need to be determined is supposed to achieve.
Could you please provide more context on the background of this change? Have you coordinated with the owners of this BIP on the deployment mechanism for this soft fork? Do you intend to work on getting BIP 118 deployed and filling in all these TBDs?
Hey @murchandamus, thanks for asking about this.
I noticed the deployment section just had "TODO" placeholders, so I filled it out to match the standard pattern other soft forks use. The actual deployment parameters (bit numbers, timing, etc.) would still need to be decided by Core devs and the community if/when this gets seriously considered for activation.
Basically just trying to make the BIP more complete by having a proper deployment spec instead of just "TODO". The TBD values would get filled in during the real deployment process. Haven't coordinated with the BIP authors yet - figured I'd start with the PR and see if this direction makes sense.
Haven't coordinated with the BIP authors yet - figured I'd start with the PR and see if this direction makes sense.
@crStiv the BIP author(s) would need to sign off on this change, so coordinating with them would be a good idea, but I'm unsure this would be high on their list of priorities. I hesitate between suggesting this be closed, or waiting until, say, the end of July for approval and if none then closing.
@cdecker @ajtowns
I don't really see the point of this -- it's still effectively a "TODO" until the parameters are filled in, and it's also possible that it will be by some mechanism other than bip9. Since taproot is active now, just deleting that paragraph seems more sensible than changing it to a MUST.
Agreed, initially we omitted the activation section on purpose as it allows for batch activation with other soft forks. The added template does not add clarifying information, rather it restricts the activations and causes a useless conflict, reopening the whole "how to activate" debate, when really we should be discussing "what to activate".
I’m closing this, because I don’t think this improvement is substantial enough to bother the authors another time.