On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.

You could get most of the best of both with a combination of the two: Have the activation be a timestamp plus a certain number of blocks to come after maybe about 100, which is more than enough to make sure all the games which can be played with timestamps have passed but a small enough amount that it doesn't add much uncertainty to wall clock time.