Add BIP 66 notice to the 0.10 release notes #5757

pull sipa wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:0.10 from sipa:bip66doc changing 1 files +18 −0

sipa commented at 6:28 PM on February 4, 2015: member

No description provided.

in doc/release-notes.md:None in 3dbca680c9 outdated

 299 | +Bitcoin Core 0.10 implements BIP 66, which introduces block version 3.
 300 | +
 301 | +When a sequence of 1001 blocks is produced out of which 751 have version 3 or
 302 | +higher set, a new consensus rule becomes active, which prohibits non-DER
 303 | +signatures. Such transactions have been non-standard since Bitcoin v0.8.0
 304 | +(released in Februari 2013), but were technically still permitted inside

sdaftuar commented at 6:34 PM on February 4, 2015:

typo: Februari -> February

sipa force-pushed on Feb 4, 2015
sipa commented at 6:42 PM on February 4, 2015: member

Rewritten a bit. @sdaftuar Fixed.
Add BIP 66 notice to the 0.10 release notes. 04ca082dd9

in doc/release-notes.md:None in 4ce2330d79 outdated

 305 | +required if implementations would want to remove all of OpenSSL from the
 306 | +consensus code.
 307 | +
 308 | +The same miner-voting mechanism as in BIP 34 is used: when 751 out of a
 309 | +sequence of 1001 blocks have version number 3 or higher, the new consensus
 310 | +rule becomes active for those blocks. When 951 out of sequence of 1001

sdaftuar commented at 6:56 PM on February 4, 2015:

(sorry for the nits): "951 out of sequence" should be "951 out of a sequence"

rest looks good to me!

sipa force-pushed on Feb 4, 2015
sipa commented at 7:48 PM on February 4, 2015: member

@sdaftuar Thanks for looking; fixed.
theuni commented at 8:01 PM on February 4, 2015: member

ACK.
in doc/release-notes.md:None in 04ca082dd9
```
 301 | +non-standard since Bitcoin v0.8.0 (released in February 2013), but were
 302 | +technically still permitted inside blocks.
 303 | +
 304 | +This change breaks the dependency on OpenSSL's signature parsing, and is
 305 | +required if implementations would want to remove all of OpenSSL from the
 306 | +consensus code.
```
luke-jr commented at 9:13 PM on February 4, 2015:

I would mention that OpenSSL does not guarantee consensus-compatible behaviour here too.

"This change breaks the dependency on implementation-specific details in OpenSSL's signature parsing, avoids depending on OpenSSL maintaining those details to be consensus-compatible (which they do not guarantee), and is required if implementations would want to remove all of OpenSSL from the consensus code."

sipa commented at 1:13 AM on February 5, 2015:

Meh.
luke-jr commented at 9:14 PM on February 4, 2015: member

I suggest perhaps moving this section up before "REST interface" since it affects everyone. OTOH, it's not really user-visible, so maybe not. shrug
fanquake commented at 12:06 AM on February 5, 2015: member

ACK
sipa referenced this in commit e43f25c5b1 on Feb 5, 2015
laanwj commented at 10:12 AM on February 5, 2015: member

Merged via e43f25c (had to resolve a trivial merge conflict with #5755)
laanwj closed this on Feb 5, 2015
reddink referenced this in commit d6a19c623e on May 27, 2020
MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors