From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail•ch>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 11:51:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqBE-sxB3j6WK9kW8Zp9GkEG1b3q=_iqJS+XkGzv7EXDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <q2ezd-tOTBF_3zLOedB36jYCuszrKYS-9BHS_Unle1NipWFTWX-aDwsfy5XrAB2D02SwojA4C_vDIyZa-VEh9IlQalF27HYG5C5KAP9096o=@protonmail.ch>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1951 bytes --]
What if you want height based but lockinontimeout = false ?
On 7 Jul 2017 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated
> the BIP text in the following proposals
>
> "lockinontimeout" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 the BIP9
> implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispense with
> it entirely.
>
> So the two changes BIP8 brings is BIP9 modified to use height not time,
> and remove the veto failed state.
>
> Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-
> height
> BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...
> shaolinfry:bip8-height
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3286 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 9:51 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
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 [this message]
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='CABm2gDqBE-sxB3j6WK9kW8Zp9GkEG1b3q=_iqJS+XkGzv7EXDQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=shaolinfry@protonmail$(echo .)ch \
/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