Skip to content

Conversation

@Sjors
Copy link
Member

@Sjors Sjors commented Sep 29, 2022

Drop DEPLOYMENT_TAPROOT from consensus.vDeployments.

Now that the commit (7c08d81) which changes taproot to be enforced for all blocks is included in v24.0, it seems a good time to remove no longer needed non-consensus code.

Clarify what is considered a BuriedDeployment.

We drop taproot from getdeploymentinfo RPC, rather than mark it as buried, because this is not a buried deployment in the sense of BIP 90. This is because the activation height has been completely removed from the code, rather than hard coded.

See discussion in #24737 and #26162.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Sep 30, 2022

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/26201.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
Concept ACK l0rinc, sedited
Stale ACK jonatack

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!--meta-tag:bot-skip--> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

  • #34049 (rpc: Disallow captures in RPCMethodImpl by ajtowns)
  • #31974 (Drop testnet3 by Sjors)

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.

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Oct 2, 2022

Concept ~0, but I object the claim in general that commits "sufficiently buried by other commits, and thus less likely to be reverted". Git isn't PoW, and "burying" commits does not make them less likely to be reverted.

@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented Oct 3, 2022

@luke-jr changed the wording to "is (probably) included in v24.0".

@ajtowns
Copy link
Contributor

ajtowns commented Oct 8, 2022

This should be updating MinBIP9WarningHeight above the taproot activation height (otherwise you should see "warnings": "Unknown new rules activated (versionbit 2)" due to miner signalling)

@Sjors Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch from b0f4391 to 8f96e52 Compare November 1, 2022 09:41
@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented Nov 1, 2022

@ajtowns done

@Sjors Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch 2 times, most recently from b8c2cc1 to 20ef70f Compare November 1, 2022 09:51
@DrahtBot DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2023
@achow101
Copy link
Member

Are you still working on this?

@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented May 8, 2023

I'll rebase soon(tm).

Comment on lines 14 to 19
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This will need aRules in rpc/mining.cpp updated

@Sjors Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch 2 times, most recently from 20687de to 7fb3287 Compare August 18, 2023 10:28
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@luke-jr like this?

This will need aRules in rpc/mining.cpp updated

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh wait, without !

I'll push a fix and add a test...

Before and after this change it should be:

bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate '{"rules": ["segwit"]}' | jq '.rules'
[
  "csv",
  "!segwit",
  "taproot"
]

@Sjors Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch from 7fb3287 to b5d8ddb Compare August 18, 2023 11:11
@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented Aug 18, 2023

Rebased after kernel changes. Fixed a regression in getblocktemplate's rules result, and added a test for tit.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In #27433 I propose getting rid of fPreSegWit.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this was #31625, but then closed

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indeed it was split out from #27433 into its own PR #31625, which after some discussion I marked up for grabs.

@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented Apr 30, 2025

Rebased after #29039.

@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented May 14, 2025

Trivial rebase after #32386.

@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented Jun 19, 2025

Rebased after #31981 for minor conflict in mining_basic.py.

fanquake added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2025
8ee8a95 doc: taproot became always active in v24.0 (Sjors Provoost)

Pull request description:

  Split from #26201.

ACKs for top commit:
  maflcko:
    lgtm ACK 8ee8a95
  janb84:
    ACK 8ee8a95

Tree-SHA512: 1ac6994c6775ca5423f022d1e02e3d531fb7fa295be9940355b8aa9d173787a8d65945a0cf976ab344bcaa3ea8a0f3aa6f8da851325bf475e59375981b115cab
@Sjors Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch from f08e573 to 84287a3 Compare June 19, 2025 15:01
@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented Jun 19, 2025

Rebased after splitting the doc/bips.md changes off into #32776.

Drop DEPLOYMENT_TAPROOT from consensus.vDeployments.

Bump MinBIP9WarningHeight.

Clarify what is considered a BuriedDeployment and
drop taproot from getdeploymentinfo RPC.

Add a test to getblocktemplate to ensure the taproot
rule is still set.

Co-Authored-By: MarcoFalke <*~=`'#}+{/-|&$^[email protected]>
@Sjors Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch from 84287a3 to ec17c82 Compare September 3, 2025 11:32
@Sjors
Copy link
Member Author

Sjors commented Sep 3, 2025

Rebased after #33274.

@sedited
Copy link
Contributor

sedited commented Dec 28, 2025

Concept ACK

Seems reasonable given that we say "Consensus changes for which the new rules are enforced from genesis are not listed here."

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants