Remove Taproot BIP 9 deployment by Sjors · Pull Request #26201 · bitcoin/bitcoin

Sjors · 2022-09-29T11:16:54Z

Drop DEPLOYMENT_TAPROOT from consensus.vDeployments.

Now that the commit (7c08d81) which changes taproot to be enforced for all blocks is included in v24.0, it seems a good time to remove no longer needed non-consensus code.

Clarify what is considered a BuriedDeployment.

We drop taproot from getdeploymentinfo RPC, rather than mark it as buried, because this is not a buried deployment in the sense of BIP 90. This is because the activation height has been completely removed from the code, unlike the hardcoded DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT height which is still relied on.¹

See discussion in #24737 and #26162.

DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT is used in IsBlockMutated to determine if witness data is allowed, it's used for BIP147, to trigger NeedsRedownload() for users who upgraded after a decade, and for a few other things. ↩

DrahtBot · 2022-09-30T14:34:31Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/26201.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	sedited, darosior, ajtowns, achow101
Concept ACK	l0rinc
Approach ACK	jonatack

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste  into the comment that the bot should ignore.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#34049 (rpc: Disallow captures in RPCMethodImpl by ajtowns)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

luke-jr · 2022-10-02T14:04:08Z

Concept ~0, but I object the claim in general that commits "sufficiently buried by other commits, and thus less likely to be reverted". Git isn't PoW, and "burying" commits does not make them less likely to be reverted.

Sjors · 2022-10-03T09:22:14Z

@luke-jr changed the wording to "is (probably) included in v24.0".

ajtowns · 2022-10-08T03:47:41Z

This should be updating MinBIP9WarningHeight above the taproot activation height (otherwise you should see "warnings": "Unknown new rules activated (versionbit 2)" due to miner signalling)

Sjors · 2022-11-01T09:41:51Z

@ajtowns done

src/consensus/params.h

doc/release-notes-26201.md

achow101 · 2023-04-25T15:23:34Z

Are you still working on this?

Sjors · 2023-05-08T14:12:42Z

I'll rebase soon(tm).

luke-jr · 2023-07-27T00:54:31Z

src/deploymentinfo.cpp

This will need aRules in rpc/mining.cpp updated

Sjors · 2023-08-18T10:30:05Z

src/rpc/mining.cpp

@luke-jr like this?

This will need aRules in rpc/mining.cpp updated

Oh wait, without !

I'll push a fix and add a test...

Before and after this change it should be:

bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate '{"rules": ["segwit"]}' | jq '.rules' [ "csv", "!segwit", "taproot" ]

Sjors · 2023-08-18T11:12:37Z

Rebased after kernel changes. Fixed a regression in getblocktemplate's rules result, and added a test for tit.

Sjors · 2023-08-18T11:16:34Z

src/rpc/mining.cpp

In #27433 I propose getting rid of fPreSegWit.

this was #31625, but then closed

Indeed it was split out from #27433 into its own PR #31625, which after some discussion I marked up for grabs.

sedited · 2025-12-28T17:03:16Z

Concept ACK

Seems reasonable given that we say "Consensus changes for which the new rules are enforced from genesis are not listed here."

sedited · 2026-02-24T09:07:09Z

We drop taproot from getdeploymentinfo RPC, rather than mark it as buried, because this is not a buried deployment in the sense of BIP 90. This is because the activation height has been completely removed from the code, rather than hard coded.

Looking at this a bit more, how is the taproot deployment different here from the segwit deployment? AFAICT the segwit height is only used for checking the NeedsRedownload condition, and the purpose of that functionality has been questioned recently too. Can you elaborate on this in the motivation?

Sjors · 2026-02-24T09:26:58Z

@sedited Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT is also used to determine whether a block is allowed to have witness data (IsBlockMutated) and for BIP147. I expanded the PR description.

darosior

Concept ACK.

I find it confusing that we don't simply make it a buried deployment like we did for the past 5 soft forks. But since we always enforce it from genesis, it would probably be even more confusing (for instance setting -testactivationheight=taproot@42 wouldn't have the intended effect).

Could you update the PR title? There is no Taproot activation height. Maybe "Remove Taproot BIP 9 deployment"?

darosior · 2026-02-27T20:14:01Z

But since we always enforce it from genesis, it would probably be even more confusing (for instance setting -testactivationheight=taproot@42 wouldn't have the intended effect).

I guess it's already equally confusing for -testactivationheight=segwit@42. Oh well..

ajtowns

ACK ec17c82

ajtowns · 2026-02-28T17:20:58Z

src/consensus/params.h

    DEPLOYMENT_DERSIG,
    DEPLOYMENT_CSV,
+    // SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS is enforced from genesis, but the check for downloading
+    // missing witness data is not. BIP 147 also relies on hardcoded activation height.


I think it might be good (not necessarily in this PR) to change VBDeploymentInfo in deploymentinfo.h/cpp to perhaps specify the SCRIPT_VERIFY flags related to a deployment, or to add a std::string with some info about the deployment (EDIT: and to report this information via getdeploymentinfo).

I indeed prefer to leave this for a followup (and as you mention, maybe not needed).

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

sedited

ACK ec17c82

Drop DEPLOYMENT_TAPROOT from consensus.vDeployments. Bump MinBIP9WarningHeight. Clarify what is considered a BuriedDeployment and drop taproot from getdeploymentinfo RPC. Add a test to getblocktemplate to ensure the taproot rule is still set. Co-Authored-By: MarcoFalke <*~=`'#}+{/-|&$^[email protected]>

Sjors · 2026-03-10T15:17:59Z

Rebased after #34677 v31 chainparams update.

sedited

Re-ACK 74f71c5

sedited · 2026-03-19T11:57:50Z

Ping @ajtowns and @darosior to take another look.

darosior

utACK 74f71c5

fanquake · 2026-03-20T02:31:40Z

cc @instagibbs

ajtowns · 2026-03-20T04:43:39Z

reACK 74f71c5

achow101 · 2026-03-20T21:57:22Z

ACK 74f71c5

Sjors mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2022

Remove taproot chain param and list exception blocks in getdeploymentinfo #26162

Closed

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Oct 1, 2022

refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel #26177

Merged

Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch from b0f4391 to 8f96e52 Compare November 1, 2022 09:41

maflcko reviewed Nov 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/consensus/params.h Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

maflcko reviewed Nov 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

doc/release-notes-26201.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch 2 times, most recently from b8c2cc1 to 20ef70f Compare November 1, 2022 09:51

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2023

OP_VAULT draft #26857

Closed

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2023

Update chainparams for 25.x #27223

Closed

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Mar 16, 2023

luke-jr suggested changes Jul 27, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/deploymentinfo.cpp Outdated

Copy link

Member

luke-jr Jul 27, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will need aRules in rpc/mining.cpp updated

Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch 2 times, most recently from 20687de to 7fb3287 Compare August 18, 2023 10:28

Sjors commented Aug 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Aug 18, 2023

Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch from 7fb3287 to b5d8ddb Compare August 18, 2023 11:11

Sjors commented Aug 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

Sjors mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2023

getblocktemplate improvements for segwit and sigops #27433

Closed

DrahtBot added CI failed and removed CI failed labels Sep 12, 2023

This was referenced Sep 28, 2023

Covenant tools softfork #28550

Closed

kernel: chainparams updates for 26.x #28591

Merged

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Sep 3, 2025

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2025

rpc: Disallow captures in RPCMethodImpl #34049

Open

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Feb 26, 2026

kernel: Chainparams and headerssync updates pre-31.0 #34677

Merged

sedited mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2026

chainparams: remove Taproot BIP 9 deployment #34694

Closed

darosior reviewed Feb 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Sjors changed the title ~~Remove Taproot activation height~~ Remove Taproot BIP 9 deployment Feb 28, 2026

ajtowns reviewed Feb 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot requested review from darosior, jonatack and sedited February 28, 2026 17:38

sedited approved these changes Mar 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

fanquake added this to the 32.0 milestone Mar 2, 2026

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Mar 8, 2026

Sjors force-pushed the 2022/09/taproot-demarcation-height branch from ec17c82 to 74f71c5 Compare March 10, 2026 15:17

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Mar 10, 2026

sedited approved these changes Mar 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot requested a review from ajtowns March 11, 2026 08:09

darosior approved these changes Mar 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

achow101 merged commit 483769c into bitcoin:master Mar 20, 2026
26 checks passed

kevkevinpal mentioned this pull request Mar 21, 2026

Remove Taproot BIP 9 deployment (PR #26201) kevkevinpal/bitcoin#310

Open

Conversation

Sjors commented Sep 29, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Footnotes

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Sep 30, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews

Conflicts

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Oct 2, 2022

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Oct 3, 2022

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Oct 8, 2022

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Nov 1, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

achow101 commented Apr 25, 2023

Uh oh!

Sjors commented May 8, 2023

Uh oh!

luke-jr Jul 27, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Aug 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Aug 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Aug 18, 2023

Uh oh!

Sjors Aug 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maflcko Jun 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Jun 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sedited commented Dec 28, 2025

Uh oh!

sedited commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

darosior left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

darosior commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

ajtowns left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ajtowns Feb 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Mar 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sedited left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Mar 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sedited left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sedited commented Mar 19, 2026

Uh oh!

darosior left a comment

Sjors commented Sep 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Sep 30, 2022 •

edited

Loading

ajtowns Feb 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Sjors Mar 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Sjors commented Mar 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading