Consensus Cleanup Protocol Changes as Independent BIPs

[JeremyRubin]

Add three unassigned Draft BIPs for the timestamp-boundary fix, the legacy sigops transaction limit, and coinbase locktime duplicate prevention. Attribute the new drafts to Jeremy Rubin, leave BIP54 and BIP53 unchanged, and copy each new draft's test vectors into its own auxiliary directory.

As per discussion on #2175 (comment) this seems to be the favored approach.

@Christewart, I think it's worthwhile (separate from this) to make BIP-0053 have the same test vectors and spec languages as BIP-0054 for the 64 byte rule.

[jonatack]

Looks reasonably complete. Is it your intention to propose the same mitigations as BIP54, or a somewhat different set?

[murchandamus]

This does look like a replication of three parts of BIP54. Would I be right to expect another document that bundles either these three parts or these three parts plus an alternative to the 64-byte mitigation? Unless these forthcoming documents were to propose something different than BIP54 in sum, I don’t see the point of splitting BIP54 and duplicating the content.

[JeremyRubin]

Not clear if I intend to bundle them -- I'm tepid about bundling in general. Perhaps just as a deployment BIP?

In the future, I'll propose alternative mitigations for 64-byte witness stripped mitigations.

[SatsAndSports]

What's the ultimate goal here? Is the goal to propose multiple different soft forks, with different activations, for each of the seperate issues?

[JeremyRubin]

well, I'm doing this work because I think removing 64 byte witness stripped transactions from Bitcoin to benefit SPV users is a mistake, and a mistake with better alternatives.

Un-bundling them is "friendly" because I don't want to make unneccessary churn on the other consensus cleanup proposal components.