From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The increase of max block size should be determined by block height instead of block time
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:58:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDraEJVA3+dLYLEvMYNfDCkuZj+eajLcPsMKXBwnEP+KCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99EC10C0-CA98-4AA9-B94E-FB6775BAF55B@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1325 bytes --]
On Dec 18, 2015 9:43 PM, "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> FWIW all these median time based schemes should be using median time
past: the point is to use a time that the block creator has no direct
control of, while still tying the rule to wall clock time for planning
purposes.
Well, if after the "planned clock time" you need to wait for the next diff
retarget and then wait for 95% (bip9) I think the value of being able to
use "human friendly clock time" is very dubious (specially since median
time is different from real-world time anyway).
But yeah, not giving the creator of the current block direct control over
whether its block starts the activation process or not is achieved with
median time of the previous block just as well as nHeight does.
So even if I disagree with the value that median time brings over the
simpler height approach, let's please decide on one and always use that for
both hardforks and softforks as part of bip9 (which we would need to
modify).
An initial time threshold is not necessary for uncontroversial softforks,
but it doesn't hurt (you can always set it in the past if you want to not
use it) and in fact it simplifies bip9's implementation.
Let's please decide once and for all, update bip9 and bip99 and stop doing
something different on every hardfork patch we write.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1486 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-18 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-18 19:17 Chun Wang
2015-12-18 19:52 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-18 20:02 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-18 20:10 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-18 20:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-18 20:20 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-18 20:58 ` gb
2015-12-18 20:43 ` Peter Todd
2015-12-18 22:58 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-12-19 18:20 ` Peter Todd
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=CABm2gDraEJVA3+dLYLEvMYNfDCkuZj+eajLcPsMKXBwnEP+KCw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(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