bip10: Record Withdrawal in Changelog #2171

pull murchandamus wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from murchandamus:bip10-record-withdrawal changing 1 files +7 −0

murchandamus commented at 5:52 PM on May 21, 2026: member

BIP10 was withdrawn per #125 after Armory stopped using it and no other projects were known to implement support.
murchandamus added the label Metadata Update on May 21, 2026
bip10: Record Withdrawal in Changelog 7571cd4489
murchandamus force-pushed on May 21, 2026
in bip-0010.mediawiki:100 in 7571cd4489
```
  94 | @@ -95,6 +95,13 @@ The style of communication is taken directly from PGP/GPG, which uses blocks of
  95 |  
  96 |  A party receiving this TxDP can simply add their signature to the appropriate _TXINPUT_ line.  If that is the last signature required, they can broadcast it themselves.  Any software that implements this standard should be able to combine multiple TxDPs into a single TxDP.  However, even without the programmatic support, a user could manually combine them by copying the appropriate _SIG_ lines between serializations, though it is not the recommended method for combining TxDPs.
  97 |  
  98 | +== Changelog ==
  99 | +
 100 | +* 2014-11-26:
```
jonatack commented at 7:03 PM on May 21, 2026:

2014-12-09 was the date of merge, if that is preferable

murchandamus commented at 7:18 PM on May 21, 2026:

If the Changelog entry had been proposed along with the pull request, it would have had the date of when the PR was opened and signed-off by the BIP owner. I don’t think it makes sense for BIP Editors to update a Changelog date before merging a PR to the date of when they get around to merging it — that’d just be busywork. So, the date here feels natural to me as is.

jonatack commented at 7:46 PM on May 21, 2026:

Agree, makes sense. I had understood from other pulls that you were preferring the date of merge, like here: #2167 (review).

jonatack commented at 7:51 PM on May 21, 2026:

Not a big deal either way

murchandamus commented at 8:01 PM on May 21, 2026:

It’s possible that I have not been consistent across my updates in this regard. In that specific case the author had announced a planned date for the merge in advance, though.

jonatack commented at 8:20 PM on May 21, 2026:

True. In some cases, like for activation of a process BIP, or if there is a large difference between dates of opening and merging, it may also make sense to focus on merge date?

murchandamus commented at 11:32 PM on May 21, 2026:

Sure, in cases where they diverge greatly, merge date seems more reasonable.

in bip-0010.mediawiki:102 in 7571cd4489

  94 | @@ -95,6 +95,13 @@ The style of communication is taken directly from PGP/GPG, which uses blocks of
  95 |  
  96 |  A party receiving this TxDP can simply add their signature to the appropriate _TXINPUT_ line.  If that is the last signature required, they can broadcast it themselves.  Any software that implements this standard should be able to combine multiple TxDPs into a single TxDP.  However, even without the programmatic support, a user could manually combine them by copying the appropriate _SIG_ lines between serializations, though it is not the recommended method for combining TxDPs.
  97 |  
  98 | +== Changelog ==
  99 | +
 100 | +* 2014-11-26:
 101 | +** Withdrawn after Armory stopped using BIP10 and no other projects were known to implement support (see [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/125 bips#125]).
 102 | +* 2011-10-28:

jonatack commented at 7:05 PM on May 21, 2026:

Indeed, the only commit or pull I found was https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/commit/42619919ee09e2a9ca967da232772030517c7f40 on this date

jonatack merged this on May 21, 2026
jonatack closed this on May 21, 2026

Contributors

murchandamus

jonatack

Labels

Metadata Update

Linked (view graph)

#125 Updating status of BIP 0010