bip-0054: update forward compat section with Bitcoin Core v30 #2044

1. 
   darosior commented at 5:48 pm on November 25, 2025: member

   The BIP 54 sigops limit was made a standardness rule in Bitcoin Core 30.0 with the merge of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521.
2. bip-0054: update forward compat section with Bitcoin Core v30

   The BIP 54 sigops limit was made a standardness rules in Bitcoin Core 30.0.

   1076d90678
3. in bip-0054.md:147 in 8c526c0c5c outdated

   142@@ -143,10 +143,8 @@ the grace period used in this proposal, miners should use the `curtime` or `mint
   143 according to this proposal. Note this is not a new requirement: using a timestamp lower than the
   144 `mintime` field from the `getblocktemplate` result already leads to creating an invalid block.
   145 
   146-Bitcoin Core as of version 29.0 may relay and create a block template including a transaction that
   147-violates the signature operations limit introduced in this BIP. A newer version of Bitcoin Core
   148-that makes this type of transaction non-standard should be widely adopted before this soft fork is
   149-considered for activation.
   150+Bitcoin Core version [30.0][Core 30.0] and later will not generate a block template including a
   151+transaction that violates the signature operations limit introduced in this BIP.
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 6:02 pm on November 25, 2025:

   0transaction that violates the signature operations limit introduced in this BIP (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521).
   

   Do you think it would be useful to link to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521 here?

   ---

   

   darosior commented at 7:02 pm on November 25, 2025:

   Yeah i thought about it but figured it was superfluous to link to implementation details.

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 8:00 pm on November 25, 2025:

   What is a rough threshold for “widely adopted” and, depending on what it is relative to current v30 adoption, should a mention about adoption remain for now?

   ---

   

   darosior commented at 9:23 pm on November 25, 2025:

   I am not sure what’s a good threshold to give. Ideally all of them would be upgraded before activation, but you also do not want to give a too small minority of miners a veto power over consensus changes.

   If something is to be kept it should apply to the whole section really, although the two most concerning items are the coinbase restriction and this one. I’m not sure. On the other hand having a whole section about miner forward compatibility sort of speaks for itself.

4. darosior force-pushed on Nov 25, 2025
5. 
   darosior commented at 7:04 pm on November 25, 2025: member

   Rebased after #2015 was merged (thanks!).
6. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Nov 25, 2025
7. 
   jonatack commented at 9:34 pm on November 25, 2025: member

   ACK 1076d906782266e7a1f7eb4d2aa86c576574c398
8. jonatack assigned murchandamus on Nov 25, 2025
9. 
   murchandamus commented at 6:21 pm on December 8, 2025: contributor

   LGTM
10. murchandamus merged this on Dec 8, 2025
11. murchandamus closed this on Dec 8, 2025

    ---

Contributors
darosior jonatack murchandamus

Labels
Proposed BIP modification