From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay.
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 07:04:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrLGHHn96JVpUX3kHcW0qx2fieAaYydb5EC_SGh=2hEFQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87eghwiu4k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1099 bytes --]
I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks will
replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in
favor of using the height from the start. This is "being discussed" in a
thread branched from bip99's discussion.
Anyway, is this proposing to use the block time or the median block time?
For some hardforks/softforks the block time complicates the implementation
(ie in acceptToMemoryPool) as discussed in the mentioned thread.
On Sep 19, 2015 1:24 AM, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp•com.au> wrote:
> Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> writes:
> > I agree on using height vs time. Rusty, what do you mean by being easier
> > for bip writers? How is writing "block x" any harder than writing "date
> y".
>
> Three years from drafting is reasonable. How many blocks is that? Hmm,
> better make it 6 years of blocks just in case we have a hash race.
>
> Deployment speed is measured in months, not blocks. It's hard enough to
> guess without adding another variable.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1480 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-19 5:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-13 18:56 Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 15:53 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-16 17:53 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:19 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 20:27 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:32 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:38 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:48 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:54 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:57 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 21:03 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 22:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-09-17 10:38 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-17 13:59 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-17 21:57 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-17 22:00 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-19 5:04 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-09-20 3:56 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-21 8:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-21 10:34 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 20:30 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-18 1:19 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-23 18:33 ` Tom Harding
2015-09-23 19:01 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-09-30 2:05 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-30 23:41 ` Tom Harding
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='CABm2gDrLGHHn96JVpUX3kHcW0qx2fieAaYydb5EC_SGh=2hEFQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
/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