Add OP_TEMPLATEHASH and TH+CSFS+IK bundle BIP

.github/workflows/github-action-checks.yml

@@ -5,18 +5,18 @@ jobs:
   Link-Format-Checks:
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
     steps:
-      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v5
       - run: scripts/link-format-chk.sh
   Build-Table-Checks:
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
     steps:
-      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v5
       - run: scripts/buildtable.pl >/tmp/table.mediawiki || exit 1
   Diff-Checks:
     name: "Diff Checks (fails until number assignment)"
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
     steps:
-      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v5
         with:
           fetch-depth: 2
       - run: scripts/diffcheck.sh
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ jobs:
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
     steps:
       - name: Checkout Actions Repository
-        uses: actions/checkout@v4
+        uses: actions/checkout@v5
 
       - name: Check spelling
         uses: crate-ci/typos@master

README.mediawiki

@@ -609,13 +609,13 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th
 | Gavin Andresen
 | Standard
 | Rejected
-|- style="background-color: #ffffcf"
+|- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
 | [[bip-0111.mediawiki|111]]
 | Peer Services
 | NODE_BLOOM service bit
 | Matt Corallo, Peter Todd
 | Standard
-| Proposed
+| Final
 |- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
 | [[bip-0112.mediawiki|112]]
 | Consensus (soft fork)
@@ -889,34 +889,34 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th
 | Karl-Johan Alm
 | Standard
 | Withdrawn
-|-
+|- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
 | [[bip-0155.mediawiki|155]]
 | Peer Services
 | addrv2 message
 | Wladimir J. van der Laan
 | Standard
-| Draft
+| Final
 |- style="background-color: #ffcfcf"
 | [[bip-0156.mediawiki|156]]
 | Peer Services
 | Dandelion - Privacy Enhancing Routing
 | Brad Denby, Andrew Miller, Giulia Fanti, Surya Bakshi, Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan, Pramod Viswanath
 | Standard
 | Rejected
-|-
+|- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
 | [[bip-0157.mediawiki|157]]
 | Peer Services
 | Client Side Block Filtering
 | Olaoluwa Osuntokun, Alex Akselrod, Jim Posen
 | Standard
-| Draft
-|-
+| Final
+|- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
 | [[bip-0158.mediawiki|158]]
 | Peer Services
 | Compact Block Filters for Light Clients
 | Olaoluwa Osuntokun, Alex Akselrod
 | Standard
-| Draft
+| Final
 |- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
 | [[bip-0159.mediawiki|159]]
 | Peer Services

bip-0002.mediawiki

@@ -359,8 +359,8 @@ In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be listed in the License and
 
 ====Recommended licenses====
 
-* BSD-2-Clause: [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license]
-* BSD-3-Clause: [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license]
+* BSD-2-Clause: [https://opensource.org/license/BSD-2-Clause OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license]
+* BSD-3-Clause: [https://opensource.org/license/BSD-3-Clause OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license]
 * CC0-1.0: [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal]
 * GNU-All-Permissive: [https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html GNU All-Permissive License]
 
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ In addition, it is recommended that literal code included in the BIP be dual-lic
 * BSL-1.0: [https://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Boost Software License, version 1.0]
 * CC-BY-4.0: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International]
 * CC-BY-SA-4.0: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International]
-* MIT: [https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Expat/MIT/X11 license]
+* MIT: [https://opensource.org/license/MIT The MIT License]
 * AGPL-3.0+: [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), version 3 or newer]
 * FDL-1.3: [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3]
 * GPL-2.0+: [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer]

bip-0003.md

@@ -120,8 +120,7 @@ appear in the following order. Headers marked with "\*" are optional. All other
   Status: <Draft | Complete | Deployed | Closed>
   Type: <Specification | Informational | Process>
   Created: <Date of number assignment (yyyy-mm-dd), or "?">
-  License: <Identifier(s) of acceptable license(s)>
-* License-Code: <Identifier(s) for Code under different acceptable license(s)>
+  License: <SPDX License Expression>
 * Discussion: <Noteworthy discussion threads in "yyyy-mm-dd: URL" format>
 * Version: <MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH>
 * Requires: <BIP number(s)>
@@ -147,10 +146,8 @@ appear in the following order. Headers marked with "\*" are optional. All other
   Authors header. See the [BIP Ownership](#bip-ownership) section above.
 * Status — The stage of the workflow of the proposal. See the [Workflow](#workflow) section below.
 * Type — See the [BIP Types](#bip-types) section below for a description of the three BIP types.
-* License and License-Code — These headers list SPDX License Identifier(s) of the acceptable licenses under which the
-  BIP and corresponding code are available. See the [BIP Licensing](#bip-licensing) section below for a description of
-  the Licenses and their SPDX License Identifiers. If there are multiple acceptable licenses, each should be on a
-  separate line.
+* License — The License header specifies SPDX License Expressions describing the terms under which the
+  BIP and its auxiliary files are available. See the [BIP Licensing](#bip-licensing) section below.
 * Discussion — The Discussion header points the audience to relevant discussions of the BIP, e.g., the mailing list
   thread in which the idea for the BIP was discussed, a thread where a new version of the BIP was presented, or relevant
   discussion threads on other platforms. Entries take the format "yyyy-mm-dd: URL", e.g., `2009-01-09:
@@ -391,67 +388,59 @@ innovate on a level playing field. Only freely licensed contributions are accept
 
 ### Specification
 
-Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. Licenses must be referenced per their
-respective [SPDX License identifier](https://spdx.org/licenses). New BIPs may be accepted with the licenses described
-below.
+Each new BIP must specify in two ways under which license terms it is made available. First, it must specify an [SPDX
+License Expression](https://spdx.dev/ids/) in the License field in the preamble. Second, it must include a matching
+Copyright section, possibly providing further details on licensing.
 
 For example, a preamble might include the following License header:
 
-    License: CC0-1.0
-             GNU-All-Permissive
+    License: CC0-1.0 OR MIT
 
-In this case, the BIP text is fully licensed under both the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license as well as the
-GNU All-Permissive License, and anyone may modify and redistribute the text provided they comply with the terms of
-*either* license. In other words, the license list is an "OR choice", not an "AND also" requirement.
+In this case, the BIP (including all auxiliary files) is made available under the terms of both CC0 1.0 Universal as well as the
+MIT License, and anyone may modify and redistribute it provided they comply with the terms of
+*either* license, at their option. In other words, the license list is an "OR choice", not an "AND also" requirement. See the [SPDX
+documentation](https://spdx.dev/ids/) and the [SPDX License List](https://spdx.org/licenses/) for further details.
 
-It is also possible to license source code differently from the BIP text by including the optional License-Code header
-after the License header. Again, each license must be referenced by their respective SPDX License identifier shown
-below.
+Wherever different from those specified in the License header, an auxiliary file or directory should specify the license terms under which it is made available as is common in
+software (e.g., with a [`SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>` comment](https://spdx.dev/ids/),
+a license header, or a LICENSE/COPYING file). Such exceptions should also be mentioned in the Copyright section. It is recommended to make any test vectors available
+under CC0-1.0 or FSFAP in addition to any other licenses to allow anyone to copy test vectors into their
+implementations without introducing license hindrances.
 
-Each source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in
-software (e.g., with a license header or a LICENSE/COPYING file). It is recommended to make any test vectors available
-under CC0-1.0 or GNU-All-Permissive in addition to any other licenses to allow anyone to copy test vectors into their
-implementations without introducing license hindrances. Licenses listed in the License-Code header apply to all source
-directories, source code files, and test vectors provided with the BIP except those where a LICENSE file in a directory
-or the file header states otherwise.
+A few BIP2-era BIPs (98, 116, 117, 330, 340) have a no longer used "License-Code" header indicating the license terms applicable to auxiliary source code files. For such cases, please refer to BIP2.
 
-For example, a preamble specifying the optional License-Code header might look like:
-
-    License:         CC0-1.0
-    License-Code:    MIT
-
-In this case, the code in the BIP is not available under CC0-1.0, but is only available under the terms of the MIT
+It is recommended that source code included in a BIP (whether within the text or in auxiliary files) be licensed under the same license terms as the project it
+is proposed to modify, if any. For example, changes intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be licensed (also) under the MIT
 License.
 
-BIPs are not required to be *exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under unacceptable
-licenses *in addition to* at least one acceptable license. In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be listed
-in the License and License-Code headers.
-
-It is recommended that BIPs that include literal code be licensed under the same license terms as the project it
-modifies. For example, literal code intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be licensed (or dual-licensed) under the MIT
-license terms.
-
 In all cases, details of the licensing terms must be provided in the Copyright section of the BIP.
 
 #### Acceptable Licenses[^licenses]
 
-* BSD-2-Clause: [OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause)
-* BSD-3-Clause: [OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause)
-* CC0-1.0: [Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
-* GNU-All-Permissive: [GNU All-Permissive License](http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html)
+Each new BIP must be made available under at least one acceptable license as listed below. BIPs are not required to be
+*exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under other licenses *in addition to* at least one
+acceptable license.
+
+In other words, a new BIP must specify an SPDX License Expression that is either "L" or equivalent to "L OR E" for some
+acceptable license L from the following list and another SPDX License Expression E.
+
+* BSD-2-Clause: [BSD 2-Clause License](https://opensource.org/license/BSD-2-Clause)
+* BSD-3-Clause: [BSD 3-Clause License](https://opensource.org/license/BSD-3-Clause)
+* CC0-1.0: [CC0 1.0 Universal](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
+* FSFAP: [FSF All Permissive License](https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html)
 * CC-BY-4.0: [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
-* MIT: [Expat/MIT/X11 license](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
-* Apache-2.0: [Apache License, version 2.0](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
-* BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License, version 1.0](http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
+* MIT: [The MIT License](https://opensource.org/license/MIT)
+* MIT-0: [MIT No Attribution License](https://opensource.org/license/MIT-0)
+* Apache-2.0: [Apache License 2.0](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
+* BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License 1.0](https://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
 
 #### Not Acceptable Licenses
 
 All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.
-However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should use these abbreviations
-when no other license is granted:
+However, BIPs predating this proposal were accepted under other terms, and should use one of the following identifiers.
 
-* PD: Released into the public domain
-* OPL: [Open Publication License, version 1.0](http://opencontent.org/openpub/)
+* LicenseRef-PD: Placed into the public domain
+* OPUBL-1.0: [Open Publication License 1.0](https://opencontent.org/openpub/)
 
 ## BIP Editors
 
@@ -555,6 +544,7 @@ mentioned in the [Changelog](#changelog) section.
 - The "Post-History" header is replaced with the "Discussion" header.
 - The optional "Version" header is introduced.
 - The "Discussions-To" header is dropped as it has never been used in any BIP.
+- The "License-Code" header has been sunset, as it was used by only five BIPs (98, 116, 117, 330, 340) and created more ambiguity than clarity.
 - Introduce Deputies and optional "Deputies" header.
 - The BIP "Title" header may now contain up to 50 characters (increased from 44 in BIP 2).
 - The "Layer" header is optional for Specification BIPs or Informational BIPs, as it does not make sense for all BIPs.[^layer]
@@ -599,7 +589,8 @@ The Superseded-By header is replaced with the Proposed-Replacement header in all
 
 #### Licenses
 
-The licenses of existing BIPs remain untouched.
+Existing BIPs retain their license terms unchanged.
+The License and License-Code headers of BIPs are updated to express those terms using SPDX License Expressions.
 
 ## Copyright
 
@@ -734,28 +725,30 @@ feedback, and helpful comments.
     * PD: 42
     * CC0-1.0: 23
     * BSD-3-Clause: 19
-    * OPL: 5
+    * OPUBL-1.0: 5
     * CC-BY-SA-4.0: 4
-    * GNU-All-Permissive: 3
+    * FSFAP: 3
     * MIT: 2
     * CC-BY-4.0: 1
 
-    License-Code used:
+    License-Code used (previous BIP2 format):
 
-    * MIT: 4
+    * BSD-2-Clause: 1
+    * CC0-1.0: 1
+    * MIT: 5
 
     The following previously acceptable licenses were retained per request of reviewers, even though they have so far
     never been used in the BIPs process:
 
-    * Apache-2.0: [Apache License, version 2.0](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
-    * BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License, version 1.0](http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
+    * Apache-2.0: [Apache License 2.0](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
+    * BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License 1.0](https://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
 
     The following previously acceptable licenses have never been used in the BIPs Process and have been dropped:
 
-    * AGPL-3.0+: [GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), version 3 or newer](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)
-    * FDL-1.3: [GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html)
-    * GPL-2.0+: [GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html)
-    * LGPL-2.1+: [GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1 or newer](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html)
+    * AGPL-3.0+: [GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) 3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)
+    * FDL-1.3: [GNU Free Documentation License 1.3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html)
+    * GPL-2.0+: [GNU General Public License (GPL) 2 or newer](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html)
+    * LGPL-2.1+: [GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 or newer](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html)
 
     Why are software licenses included?
 
@@ -772,7 +765,7 @@ feedback, and helpful comments.
       and therefore CC-BY-SA-4.0 (and the GPL-flavors) is no longer considered acceptable for new BIPs. As mentioned
       above, existing BIPs will retain their original licensing.
 
-    Why are OPL and Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs?
+    Why are Open Publication License and Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs?
 
     * Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus it is inadvisable.
-    * The OPL is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications.
+    * The Open Publication License is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications.

bip-0010.mediawiki

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ This BIP proposes the following process, with terms in quotes referring to recom
 #  One party will initiate this process by creating a "Distribution Proposal", which could be abbreviated DP, or TxDP
 #  The user creating the TxDP (the preparer) will create the transaction as they would like to see it spent, but with blank TxIn scripts (where the signatures scripts will eventually go).
 #  The proposed transaction will be spending a set of unspent TxOuts available in the blockchain.  The full transactions containing these TxOuts will be serialized and included, as well.  This so that the values of the TxIns can be verified before signing (the prev-tx-hash is part of the data being signed, but the value is not).  By including the full tx, the signing party can verify that the tx matches the OutPoint hash, and then verify input values, all without any access to the blockchain.
-#  The TxDP will have an "DP ID" or "Unsigned ID" which is the hash of the proposed transaction with blanked scripts, in Base58.  This is a specific naming convention to make sure it is not confused with the actual the transaction ID that it will have after it is broadcast (the transaction ID cannot be determined until after all signatures are collected).  The final Tx ID can be referred to as its "Broadcast ID", in order to distinguish it from the pre-signed ID.
+#  The TxDP will have an "DP ID" or "Unsigned ID" which is the hash of the proposed transaction with blanked scripts, in Base58.  This is a specific naming convention to make sure it is not confused with the actual transaction ID that it will have after it is broadcast (the transaction ID cannot be determined until after all signatures are collected).  The final Tx ID can be referred to as its "Broadcast ID", in order to distinguish it from the pre-signed ID.
 #  The TxDP will have a potentially-unordered list of sig-pubkey pairs which represent collected signatures.  If you receive a TxDP missing only your signature, you can broadcast it as soon as you sign it.
 #  Identical TxDP objects with different signatures can be easily combined.  This allows one party to send out all the requests for signatures at once, and combine them all when they are received (instead of having to "pass it around".
 #  For cases where the TxDP might be put into a file or sent via email, it should use .txdp or .btcdp suffix

bip-0032.mediawiki

@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ The first 32 bits of the identifier are called the key fingerprint.
 ===Serialization format===
 
 Extended public and private keys are serialized as follows:
-* 4 byte: version bytes (mainnet: 0x0488B21E public, 0x0488ADE4 private; testnet: 0x043587CF public, 0x04358394 private)
+* 4 bytes: version bytes (mainnet: 0x0488B21E public, 0x0488ADE4 private; testnet: 0x043587CF public, 0x04358394 private)
 * 1 byte: depth: 0x00 for master nodes, 0x01 for level-1 derived keys, ....
 * 4 bytes: the fingerprint of the parent's key (0x00000000 if master key)
 * 4 bytes: child number. This is ser<sub>32</sub>(i) for i in x<sub>i</sub> = x<sub>par</sub>/i, with x<sub>i</sub> the key being serialized. (0x00000000 if master key)

bip-0054.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
   Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0054
   Status: Draft
   Type: Standards Track
-  Created: 2024-04-11
+  Created: 2025-04-11
   License: CC0-1.0
 ```