From: shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail•ch>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00qcLaDJFDoC9D6644P_aLf7_n5B1pqCPj_c02QlqySsrJLsB6TZipXMD8L7l3lJcw5NoLP6dphCMruKJCIMkJUIDYbIw0iDd322vsNFmNw=@protonmail.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201707050350.53122.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1852 bytes --]
Luke,
I previously explored an extra state to require signalling before activation in an earlier draft of BIP8, but the overall impression I got was that gratuitous orphaning was undesirable, so I dropped it. I understand the motivation behind it (to ensure miners are upgraded), but it's also rather pointless when miners can just fake signal. A properly constructed soft fork is generally such that miners have to deliberately do something invalid - they cannot be tricked into it... and miners can always chose to do something invalid anyway.
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: luke@dashjr•org
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org, shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail•ch>
> I"ve already opened a PR almost 2 weeks ago to do this and fix the other
> issues BIP 9 has. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/550
> It just needs your ACK to merge.
> On Wednesday 05 July 2017 1:30:26 AM shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Some people have criticized BIP9"s blocktime based thresholds arguing they
>> are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable
>> to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay
>> activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second
>> you would never meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty
>> of hiking the difficulty dramatically). On the other hand, the exact date
>> of a height based thresholds is hard to predict a long time in advance due
>> to difficulty fluctuations. However, there is certainty at a given block
>> height and it"s easy to monitor. If there is sufficient interest, I would
>> be happy to amend BIP8 to be height based. I originally omitted height
>> based thresholds in the interests of simplicity of review - but now that
>> the proposal has been widely reviewed it would be a trivial amendment.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2346 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-05 4:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-05 1:30 shaolinfry
2017-07-05 2:25 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2017-07-05 3:39 ` Bram Cohen
2017-07-05 3:50 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-05 4:00 ` shaolinfry [this message]
2017-07-05 4:10 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-05 19:44 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2017-07-06 17:20 ` Jorge Timón
2017-07-06 17:41 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-07-05 8:06 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-05 8:54 ` Kekcoin
2017-07-06 20:43 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-07 5:52 ` shaolinfry
2017-07-07 9:51 ` Jorge Timón
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='00qcLaDJFDoC9D6644P_aLf7_n5B1pqCPj_c02QlqySsrJLsB6TZipXMD8L7l3lJcw5NoLP6dphCMruKJCIMkJUIDYbIw0iDd322vsNFmNw=@protonmail.ch' \
--to=shaolinfry@protonmail$(echo .)ch \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox