320 - nVersion bits for general purpose use
BIP: 320 Title: nVersion bits for general purpose use Author: BtcDrak Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0320 Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2018-03-01 License: BSD-3-Clause CC0-1.0 ==Abstract== This BIP reserves 16 bits of the block header nVersion field for general purpose use and removes their meaning for the purpose of version bits soft-fork signalling. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. ==Motivation== There are a variety of things that miners may desire to use some of the nVersion field bits for. However, due to their use to coordinate miner activated soft-forks, full node software will generate false warnings about unknown soft forks if those bits are used for non soft fork signalling purposes. By reserving bits from the...
105 - Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
BIP: 105 Layer: Consensus (hard fork) Title: Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm Author: BtcDrak Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0105 Status: Rejected Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-08-21 License: PD ==Abstract== A method of altering the maximum allowed block size of the Bitcoin protocol using a consensus based approach. ==Motivation== There is a belief that Bitcoin cannot easily respond to raising the blocksize limit if popularity was to suddenly increase due to a mass adoption curve, because co-ordinating a hard fork takes considerable time, and being unable to respond in a timely manner would irreparably harm the credibility of bitcoin. Additionally, predetermined block size increases are problematic because they attempt to predict the future, and if too large could have unintended consequences like damaging the possibility for a fee market to develop as block subsidy decrea...
116 - MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY
BIP: 116 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY Author: Mark Friedenbach Kalle Alm BtcDrak Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0116 Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2017-08-25 License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 License-Code: MIT ==Abstract== A general approach to bitcoin contracts is to fully enumerate the possible spending conditions and then program verification of these conditions into a single script. At redemption, the spending condition used is explicitly selected, e.g. by pushing a value on the witness stack which cascades through a series if if/else constructs. This approach has significant downsides, such as requiring all program pathways to be visible in the scriptPubKey or redeem script, even those which are not used at validation. This wastes space on the block chain, restricts the size of possible scripts due to push limits, and impacts both privacy and...
112 - CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
BIP: 112 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY Author: BtcDrak Mark Friedenbach Eric Lombrozo Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0112 Status: Final Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-08-10 License: PD ==Abstract== This BIP describes a new opcode (CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY) for the Bitcoin scripting system that in combination with BIP 68 allows execution pathways of a script to be restricted based on the age of the output being spent. ==Summary== CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY redefines the existing NOP3 opcode. When executed, if any of the following conditions are true, the script interpreter will terminate with an error: * the stack is empty; or * the top item on the stack is less than 0; or * the top item on the stack has the disable flag (1 3 CHECKMULTISIG ELSE "30d" CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP CHECKSIG ENDIF At any time funds can be spent using signatur...
117 - Tail Call Execution Semantics
BIP: 117 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: Tail Call Execution Semantics Author: Mark Friedenbach Kalle Alm BtcDrak Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0117 Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2017-08-25 License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 License-Code: MIT ==Abstract== BIP16 (Pay to Script Hash)[1] and BIP141 (Segregated Witness)[2] provide mechanisms by which script policy can be revealed at spend time as part of the execution witness. In both cases only a single script can be committed to by the construct. While useful for achieving the goals of these proposals, they still require that all policies be specified within the confine of a single script, regardless of whether the policies are needed at the time of spend. This BIP, in conjunction with BIP116 (MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY)[3] allows for a script to commit to a practically unbounded number of code pathways, and then reveal the actu...
98 - Fast Merkle Trees
BIP: 98 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: Fast Merkle Trees Author: Mark Friedenbach Kalle Alm BtcDrak Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0098 Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2017-08-24 License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 License-Code: MIT ==Abstract== In many applications it is useful to prove membership of a data element in a set without having to reveal the entire contents of that set. The Merkle hash-tree, where inner/non-leaf nodes are labeled with the hash of the labels or values of its children, is a cryptographic tool that achieves this goal. Bitcoin uses a Merkle hash-tree construct for committing the transactions of a block into the block header. This particular design, created by Satoshi, suffers from a serious flaw related to duplicate entries documented in the National Vulnerability Database as CVE-2012-2459[1], and also suffers from less than optimal performance d...
68 - Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers
BIP: 68 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers Author: Mark Friedenbach BtcDrak Nicolas Dorier kinoshitajona Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0068 Status: Final Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-05-28 ==Abstract== This BIP introduces relative lock-time (RLT) consensus-enforced semantics of the sequence number field to enable a signed transaction input to remain invalid for a defined period of time after confirmation of its corresponding outpoint. ==Motivation== Bitcoin transactions have a sequence number field for each input. The original idea appears to have been that a transaction in the mempool would be replaced by using the same input with a higher sequence value. Although this was not properly implemented, it assumes miners would prefer higher sequence numbers even if the lower ones were more profitable to m...
67 - Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting
BIP: 67 Layer: Applications Title: Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting Author: Thomas Kerin Jean-Pierre Rupp Ruben de Vries Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0067 Status: Proposed Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-02-08 License: PD ==Abstract== This BIP describes a method to deterministically generate multi-signature pay-to-script-hash transaction scripts. It focuses on defining how the public keys must be encoded and sorted so that the redeem script and corresponding P2SH address are always the same for a given set of keys and number of required signatures. ==Motivation== Pay-to-script-hash (BIP-0011[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0011.mediawiki BIP-0011]) is a transaction type that allows funding of arbitrary scripts, where the recipient carries the cost of fee's associated with using longer, more complex scrip...
123 - BIP Classification
BIP: 123 Title: BIP Classification Author: Eric Lombrozo Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0123 Status: Active Type: Process Created: 2015-08-26 License: CC0-1.0 GNU-All-Permissive ==Abstract== This document describes a classification scheme for BIPs. BIPs are classified by system layers with lower numbered layers involving more intricate interoperability requirements. The specification defines the layers and sets forth specific criteria for deciding to which layer a particular standards BIP belongs. ==Copyright== This BIP is dual-licensed under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal and GNU All-Permissive licenses. ==Motivation== Bitcoin is a system involving a number of different standards. Some standards are absolute requirements for interoperability while others can be considered optional, giving implementors a choice of whether to support them. In order to have a BIP process which more closely ...