65 - OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
BIP: 65 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY Author: Peter Todd Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0065 Status: Final Type: Standards Track Created: 2014-10-01 License: PD ==Abstract== This BIP describes a new opcode (OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) for the Bitcoin scripting system that allows a transaction output to be made unspendable until some point in the future. ==Summary== CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY redefines the existing NOP2 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 lock-time type (height vs. timestamp) of the top stack item and the nLockTime field are not the same; or * the top stack item is greater than the transaction's nLockTime field; or * the nSequence field of the txin is 0xffffffff; Otherwise, script execution will continue as ...
111 - NODE_BLOOM service bit
BIP: 111 Layer: Peer Services Title: NODE_BLOOM service bit Author: Matt Corallo Peter Todd Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0111 Status: Proposed Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-08-20 License: PD == Abstract == This BIP extends BIP 37, Connection Bloom filtering, by defining a service bit to allow peers to advertise that they support bloom filters explicitly. It also bumps the protocol version to allow peers to identify old nodes which allow bloom filtering of the connection despite lacking the new service bit. == Motivation == BIP 37 did not specify a service bit for the bloom filter service, thus implicitly assuming that all nodes that serve peers data support it. However, the connection filtering algorithm proposed in BIP 37, and implemented in several clients today, has been shown to provide little to no privacyhttp://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763, as well as being a large DoS risk on s...
125 - Opt-in Full Replace-by-Fee Signaling
BIP: 125 Layer: Applications Title: Opt-in Full Replace-by-Fee Signaling Author: David A. Harding Peter Todd Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0125 Status: Proposed Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-12-04 License: PD ==Abstract== Many nodes today will not replace any transaction in their mempool with another transaction that spends the same inputs, making it difficult for spenders to adjust their previously-sent transactions to deal with unexpected confirmation delays or to perform other useful replacements. The opt-in full Replace-by-Fee (opt-in full-RBF) signaling policy described here allows spenders to add a signal to a transaction indicating that they want to be able to replace that transaction in the future. In response to this signal, * Nodes may allow transactions containing this signal to be replaced in their mempools. * The recipient or recipients of a transaction containing this s...
9 - Version bits with timeout and delay
BIP: 9 Title: Version bits with timeout and delay Author: Pieter Wuille Peter Todd Greg Maxwell Rusty Russell Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0009 Status: Final Type: Informational Created: 2015-10-04 License: PD ==Abstract== This document specifies a proposed change to the semantics of the 'version' field in Bitcoin blocks, allowing multiple backward-compatible changes (further called "soft forks") to be deployed in parallel. It relies on interpreting the version field as a bit vector, where each bit can be used to track an independent change. These are tallied each retarget period. Once the consensus change succeeds or times out, there is a "fallow" pause after which the bit can be reused for later changes. ==Motivation== [[bip-0034.mediawiki|BIP 34]] introduced a mechanism for doing soft-forking changes without a predefined flag timestamp (or flag block height), inste...
147 - Dealing with dummy stack element malleability
BIP: 147 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: Dealing with dummy stack element malleability Author: Johnson Lau Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0147 Status: Final Type: Standards Track Created: 2016-09-02 License: PD ==Abstract== This document specifies proposed changes to the Bitcoin transaction validity rules to fix a malleability vector in the extra stack element consumed by OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY. ==Motivation== Signature malleability refers to the ability of any relay node on the network to transform the signature in transactions, with no access to the relevant private keys required. For non-segregated witness transactions, signature malleability will change the txid and invalidate any unconfirmed child transactions. Although the txid of segregated witness ([https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki BIP141]) transactions is not third party malleable, this...
372 - Pay-to-contract tweak fields for PSBT
BIP: 372 Layer: Applications Title: Pay-to-contract tweak fields for PSBT Author: Maxim Orlovsky Discussions-To: Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0372 Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2022-01-16 License: BSD-2-Clause Requires: BIP-174 ==Introduction== ===Abstract=== This document proposes additional fields for BIP 174 PSBTv0 and BIP 370 PSBTv2 that allow for pay-to-contract key tweaking data data to be included in a PSBT of any version. These will represent an extra-transaction information required for the signer to produce valid signatures spending previous outputs. ===Copyright=== This BIP is licensed under the 2-clause BSD license. ===Background=== Key tweaking is a procedure for creating a cryptographic commitment to some message using elliptic curve properties. The procedure uses the discrete log problem (DLP) to commit to an extra-transaction message. This is done by adding to a public key (for which the output owner k...
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 ...
66 - Strict DER signatures
BIP: 66 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: Strict DER signatures Author: Pieter Wuille Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0066 Status: Final Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-01-10 License: BSD-2-Clause ==Abstract== This document specifies proposed changes to the Bitcoin transaction validity rules to restrict signatures to strict DER encoding. ==Copyright== This BIP is licensed under the 2-clause BSD license. ==Motivation== Bitcoin's reference implementation currently relies on OpenSSL for signature validation, which means it is implicitly defining Bitcoin's block validity rules. Unfortunately, OpenSSL is not designed for consensus-critical behaviour (it does not guarantee bug-for-bug compatibility between versions), and thus changes to it can - and have - affected Bitcoin software. One specifically critical area is the encoding of signatures. Until recently, OpenSSL's releases would accept various devia...
301 - Blind Merged Mining (Consensus layer)
BIP: 301 Layer: Consensus (soft fork) Title: Blind Merged Mining (Consensus layer) Author: Paul Sztorc CryptAxe Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0301 Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2019-07-23 License: BSD-2-Clause ==Abstract== Blind Merged Mining (BMM) allows miners to mine a Sidechain/Altcoin, without running its node software (ie, without "looking" at it, hence "blind"). Instead, a separate sidechain user runs their node and constructs the block, paying himself the transaction fees. He then uses an equivalent amount of money to "buy" the right to find this block, from the conventional layer1 Sha256d miners. ==Motivation== "Merged-Mining" (MM) allows miners to reuse their hashing work to secure other chains (for example, as in Namecoin). However, traditional MM has two drawbacks: # Miners must run a full node of the other chain(s). (Thus, they must run "non-Bitcoin" software wh...