chainparams: remove Taproot BIP 9 deployment #34694

1. 
   darosior commented at 7:24 pm on February 27, 2026: member

   Since commit cccc1e70b8a14430cc94143da97936a60d6c83d3 Taproot is enforced from the genesis block. Keeping its BIP 9 deployment is unnecessary and confusing.

   This commit moves DEPLOYMENT_TAPROOT to be a buried deployment, alongside past (recent-ish) deployments.

   This builds on previous work by maflcko in PR #24737, the difference being that here we keep Taproot as a buried deployment. The ‘getdeploymentinfo’ RPC will show it as active since genesis, which is at least closer to describing the behaviour of the software than the current output.

2. chainparams: remove Taproot BIP 9 deployment

   Since commit cccc1e70b8a14430cc94143da97936a60d6c83d3 Taproot is
   enforced from the genesis block. Keeping its BIP 9 deployment is
   unnecessary and confusing.
   
   This commit moves DEPLOYMENT_TAPROOT to be a buried deployment,
   alongside past (recent-ish) deployments.
   
   This builds on previous work by maflcko in PR #24737, the difference
   being that here we keep Taproot as a buried deployment. The
   'getdeploymentinfo' RPC will show it as active since genesis, which is
   at least closer to describing the behaviour of the software than the
   current output.

   541dc2f6d7
3. 
   DrahtBot commented at 7:25 pm on February 27, 2026: contributor

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

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

4. 
   sedited commented at 7:37 pm on February 27, 2026: contributor

   Looks like this is the same as #26201, but considers taproot now a buried deployment? Would be good to explain why this takes a conflicting approach.
5. 
   darosior commented at 7:45 pm on February 27, 2026: member

   I’ve looked at #26201 but was a bit confused (the title itself is quite confusing). I don’t understand why we’d drop the deployment entirely rather than doing what we’ve done for the past 5 soft forks? For instance this prevents reporting the deployment status in RPC, and prevents using -testactivationheight to modify enforcement in testing (EDIT: actually this is wrong, and my version is more confusing here).
6. 
   darosior commented at 7:56 pm on February 27, 2026: member

   This needs more work, i’ll close it for now, and probably give feedback on #26201 instead.
7. darosior closed this on Feb 27, 2026

   ---

Contributors
darosior DrahtBot sedited