BIP8 has not had significant updates since 2021, but continues to be relevant. E.g., the BIP110 activation appears to have been modeled on BIP8, and the Speedy Trial activation of Taproot was implemented based on BIP8.
I therefore posit that BIP8 should be advanced to Complete rather being in Draft status.
cc: @btcdrak, @luke-jr as the BIP owners, but anyone’s review is welcome.
RDTS is actually BIP 9 based, unfortunately. But Taproot is a valid example. I do feel like BIP 8 could still use further elaboration (eg, explicitly laying out how the community can reject bad proposals), but I suppose as a spec it's sufficient.
RDTS is actually BIP 9 based, unfortunately. But Taproot is a valid example. I do feel like BIP 8 could still use further elaboration (eg, explicitly laying out how the community can reject bad proposals), but I suppose as a spec it's sufficient.
Well, a mix really. RDTS uses a starttime like BIP9, but otherwise height-based parameters like BIP8 and a mandatory activation like BIP8’s LOT.
Would I read too much into your comment if I were to interpret it as an ACK?
BIP 8 could still use further elaboration (eg, explicitly laying out how the community can reject bad proposals), but I suppose as a spec it's sufficient
Relevant part of BIP 3 about the Complete status, if helpful:
"Subsequently, the BIP’s content should only be adjusted in minor details, e.g., to improve language, clarify ambiguities, backfill omissions in the specification, add test vectors for edge cases, or address other issues discovered as the BIP is being adopted."