BIP 54: improve and deduplicate parts of rationale and motivation#2170
Conversation
The sentence was misleading, with 'lower end devices' potentially applying to the whole range, and the range itself being understated.
murchandamus
added
the
BIP Update by Owner
murchandamus
left a comment
murchandamus
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changes look good to me. Nice clean-up of the descriptions. No nits.
murchandamus
left a comment
murchandamus
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clicked through the commits now that CI has run and came up with a nit. ;)
The rationale was duplicating some of the motivation. The motivation had a sentence that read weird. While rephrasing the sentence, take the opportunity to link to the now-proposed Utreexo BIP. Also remove a duplicate link reference.
darosior
force-pushed
the
bip54_rationale_additions
branch
from
72928b4 to
6c61126
Compare
murchandamus
left a comment
murchandamus
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is mainly an improvement of the phrasing and collects resolutions on some remarks. There are no changes to the meaning of the specification.
LGTM.
| the same coinbase transaction cannot have been valid in a previous block[^11]. This simplifies both | ||
| reasoning and client implementation, since the [bip-0030][BIP30] check can be skipped entirely past | ||
| Consensus Cleanup activation, regardless of the [bip-0034][BIP34] activation status[^12]. One person | ||
| [raised the concern][miningdev nLockTime] that the `nLockTime` field would be an ideal extranonce |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this miningdev nLockTime link be different from the identical one 2 lines below in line 124?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Initially i was linking exactly to the two posts, but decided in favour of linking to the thread instead, as this gives a better overview of the discussion. Both Luke's and AJ's points are easy to spot from this link. So this was intentional, it just means "in the same thread".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, ok. From the way it reads, it appears like the intention is to link to each post and as a reader I reckon it would be better, but no big deal.
3 participants
As i'm finalizing the document, i noticed a few places that could be improved:
nLockTimeand explain why this approach was taken nonetheless