bips icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
bips copied to clipboard

docs: complete BIP-118 deployment section

Open crStiv opened this issue 6 months ago • 2 comments

Replaces the TODO in BIP-118 deployment section with a comprehensive deployment specification.

crStiv avatar Jun 21 '25 21:06 crStiv

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?

murchandamus avatar Jun 23 '25 17:06 murchandamus

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.

crStiv avatar Jun 23 '25 19:06 crStiv

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.

jonatack avatar Jul 01 '25 21:07 jonatack

@cdecker @ajtowns

crStiv avatar Jul 01 '25 23:07 crStiv

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.

ajtowns avatar Jul 02 '25 02:07 ajtowns

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".

cdecker avatar Jul 02 '25 08:07 cdecker

I’m closing this, because I don’t think this improvement is substantial enough to bother the authors another time.

murchandamus avatar Jul 02 '25 21:07 murchandamus