docs: complete BIP-118 deployment section #1875

pull crStiv wants to merge 4 commits into bitcoin:master from crStiv:vsa changing 1 files +0 −6

crStiv commented at 9:20 pm on June 21, 2025: none

Replaces the TODO in BIP-118 deployment section with a comprehensive deployment specification.
Update bip-0118.mediawiki adb7f8c274

in bip-0118.mediawiki:182 in adb7f8c274 outdated

179+This BIP is deployed as a soft fork subsequent to the deployment of [[bip-0340.mediawiki|BIP 340]], [[bip-0341.mediawiki|BIP 341]] and [[bip-0342.mediawiki|BIP 342]].
180 
181-This may be deployed as a soft-fork either concurrent with, or subsequent to the deployment of [[bip-0340.mediawiki|BIP 340]], [[bip-0341.mediawiki|BIP 341]] and [[bip-0342.mediawiki|BIP 342]].
182+For Bitcoin signet, this BIP can be always active for testing purposes.
183+
184+For Bitcoin mainnet and testnet3, this BIP should be deployed by "version bits" [[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP 9]] with the name "anyprevout" and a bit to be determined, using the same activation mechanism as [[bip-0341.mediawiki|BIP 341]].

jonatack commented at 3:29 pm on June 22, 2025:

I don’t know how much longer testnet3 will be around: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31974

in bip-0118.mediawiki:178 in adb7f8c274 outdated

174@@ -175,9 +175,21 @@ Following this recommendation may require additional script branches, which may
175 
176 == Deployment ==
177 
178-TODO
179+This BIP is deployed as a soft fork subsequent to the deployment of [[bip-0340.mediawiki|BIP 340]], [[bip-0341.mediawiki|BIP 341]] and [[bip-0342.mediawiki|BIP 342]].

jonatack commented at 3:30 pm on June 22, 2025:

maybe

0This BIP could be deployed as a soft fork subsequent to the deployment of [[bip-0340.mediawiki|BIP 340]], [[bip-0341.mediawiki|BIP 341]] and [[bip-0342.mediawiki|BIP 342]].

jonatack commented at 3:31 pm on June 22, 2025: member

cc BIP authors @cdecker and @ajtowns for feedback.
jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jun 22, 2025
jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Jun 22, 2025

Update bip-0118.mediawiki

Co-authored-by: Jon Atack <jon@atack.com>

4593ff5b6a

Update bip-0118.mediawiki a873d67f5d
crStiv requested review from jonatack on Jun 22, 2025
murchandamus commented at 5:43 pm on June 23, 2025: contributor

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?
crStiv commented at 7:01 pm on June 23, 2025: none

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.
jonatack commented at 9:11 pm on July 1, 2025: member

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.
crStiv commented at 11:07 pm on July 1, 2025: none

@cdecker @ajtowns
jonatack removed review request from jonatack on Jul 2, 2025
ajtowns commented at 2:38 am on July 2, 2025: contributor

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.
cdecker commented at 8:53 am on July 2, 2025: contributor

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”.
Update bip-0118.mediawiki 85d2f2f964
crStiv requested review from jonatack on Jul 2, 2025
murchandamus commented at 9:24 pm on July 2, 2025: contributor

I’m closing this, because I don’t think this improvement is substantial enough to bother the authors another time.
murchandamus closed this on Jul 2, 2025

Contributors
crStiv jonatack murchandamus ajtowns cdecker

Review Requested
jonatack

Labels
Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance