Bitcoin Development Mailinglist
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "'Bitcoin Eagle' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] [BIP Proposal] Reduced Data Temporary Softfork
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 01:30:39 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6ff66d86-848f-493d-a0dd-4ff8ea42f932n@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bJL7UshcsXUpiQiC85dQeafQrRvtovH1aRcUxggjD1S09Md9qWHi9GpJOBdcPGq2NNQMK2XK-REMVlWjHLkh3aKUIktnYQccUWqg0DHgNXc=@proton.me>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5579 bytes --]

ad 1) Funds confiscation: as already mentioned by gmaxwell there is a risk 
of confiscation of presigned transactions. Lightning like protocols that 
simulate covenants using n-of-n multisig. Will be confiscated even if UTXO 
height is whitelisted

On Saturday, November 8, 2025 at 7:58:30 AM UTC+7 dath...@proton.me wrote:

Hi all -

BIP repo maintainers requested 
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017#issuecomment-3462134337> that I 
update this list before pushing a significant change, so I am doing that 
now.

Please consider this my formal request for the BIP PR to be unlocked so 
that discussion can resume.

This update addresses several concerns from the previous draft:


   1. "Funds confiscation": due to the presence of UTXOs that would be made 
   temporarily unspendable by this proposal, commenters were concerned that 
   this would set a precedent of "confiscation". This new draft resolves this 
   concern by adding a UTXO height check to make sure *only UTXOs that are 
   created while the softfork is active will be made temporarily unspendable*. 
   The "OP_IF in Tapscript" and "257-byte control block limit" were the two 
   main proposed rule changes that caused concern here.
   2. "This doesn't block all possible methods of arbitrary data 
   insertion": This was already addressed in the previous draft, but to 
   reiterate: this proposal's goal is not to block *all*​ methods of 
   arbitary data insertion, just the most commonly abused ones.
   3. "Blocks other softfork upgrades while active": This was also 
   addressed in the original draft, but to reiterate: it's unlikely that any 
   softfork upgrades will be ready to activate within one year anyway, so this 
   doesn't matter much. But also, the fact that this softfork expires creates 
   an opportunity to activate a more permanent and elegant upgrade that turns 
   on what the community wants, while continuing to reject data storage as a 
   supported use case, after one year.
   4. "Reactive deployment risks": These concerns have been addressed by *removing 
   the reactive deployment method entirely*. I still think activating this 
   softfork is a matter of some urgency, but I think it still achieves its 
   goals if we move steadily towards activation within a few months.
   5. "Missing code": The code is now public here: 
   https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/tree/29.2.knots20251010%2BBIP444 (please 
   note that, while there are references to "BIP-444" in the code, that is 
   just a placeholder and I will update it to whatever number the BIP editors 
   decide).
   6. "Temporary expiry risks": "Requires another consensus change before 
   expiry or rules lapse": Yes, as stated in <3>, the community will have 
   to come together in a year either to extend these rules (which shouldn't be 
   difficult), or to activate something more permanent and less blunt. The 
   expiry will *not* be a hardfork, contrary to some claims I've seen, 
   because opting into this deployment means opting into the expiry as well, 
   so old nodes will follow new ones onto the unrestricted chain
   7. "Legal/process/conflict-of-interest concerns": all language about 
   legal risks has been stripped from the BIP.


I welcome any and all feedback, as I think this proposal or something 
similar to it stands an excellent chance of gaining consensus and 
activating, and I think if that happens, it could be curative for the 
Bitcoin community.

Thanks again for all of your feedback and support, it means a lot.

Sincerely,

Dathon
On Wednesday, October 29th, 2025 at 8:57 PM, Erik Aronesty <er...@q32.com> 
wrote:


Case law in the USA regarding illegal content has always rested squarely on 
those who:


1 - provide broad public access, in this case a company like OpenSEA (which 
has had to block content)
2 - the original author 

if punishing "relays" was a thing, then every CISCO router, SMTP relay and 
DISCORD server that provided access would be in court all day long

instead, it's the users of the illegal data and the publishers that 
actually wind up in trouble - not the internet providers

the bitcoin ledger is neither a browser or web server, nor is it an image 
uploader. there is zero ability to view images built into the system

and even if it was

the purpose of this software is to be a distributed and effectively 
uncensorable ledger. 

hopefully it doesn't change because someone launched a meme campaign with 
vague threats of legal action

if a transaction has /no reasonable expectation of being mined/ (too 
expensive to validate, too large, too low fees), there's also no reason to 
relay it

this is probably the best way to set policy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAJowKgKBBa%2BvD%3D5X0VMV2OFiBBM23Ok6nmvfoLTr8fia141%3DFQ%40mail.gmail.com
.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6ff66d86-848f-493d-a0dd-4ff8ea42f932n%40googlegroups.com.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8616 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-11-08 11:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-25 20:43 dathonohm via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-26 20:47 ` Jameson Lopp
2025-10-27  4:22   ` dathonohm via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-27 12:14     ` Jameson Lopp
2025-10-27 16:35     ` TheWrlck
2025-10-26 22:27 ` Peter Todd
2025-10-27  3:41   ` Jal Toorey
2025-10-27 17:27     ` Max
2025-10-27  4:08   ` dathonohm via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-27 18:29     ` Kyle Stout
2025-10-27 19:56       ` Greg Maxwell
2025-10-28  5:13         ` dathonohm via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-30  0:31           ` Antoine Riard
2025-10-30  2:43             ` Erik Aronesty
2025-11-08  0:51               ` dathonohm via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-11-08  3:43                 ` Edil Guimarães de Medeiros
2025-11-08  9:30                 ` 'Bitcoin Eagle' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List [this message]
2025-11-08 15:38                 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-11-08 16:40                   ` Daniel Buchner
2025-11-08 17:55                     ` Chris Riley
2025-11-08 21:02                   ` dathonohm via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-11-08 21:39                     ` Greg Maxwell
2025-11-09 20:07                       ` dathonohm via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-11-11  7:43                         ` 'Bitcoin Eagle' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-11-11 16:23                           ` Greg Maxwell
2025-11-09  1:21                     ` Murch
2025-11-09 20:56                       ` onyxcoyote
2025-11-09 21:34                 ` Peter Todd
2025-11-10 19:46               ` Lucas Barbosa
2025-10-28  9:16         ` /dev /fd0

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6ff66d86-848f-493d-a0dd-4ff8ea42f932n@googlegroups.com \
    --to=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=hello@bitcoineagle.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox