From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>,
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:10:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrrqubbZ7MjDppu-eFxJGcydVoSAK2SC=-s-0txYX6GRQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OVgQFaFAWUJhDLzyMAE2AXoGHTy0NbUADDAZW9-veX8XA@mail.gmail.com>
Discussions about whether to get miner's confirmation on
uncontroversial hardforks or not, and about whether to use nHeight,
nMedianTime or just use nTime are spreading all around. Hopefully
getting a BIP number (even though this is still a draft) will help
concentrating discussions about deployment of uncontroversial
hardforks to a single place.
Greg, can I get a BIP number for this?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail•com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
>>
>> You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a
>> hardfork? How so?
>
>
> The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of
> the median of the previous 11 blocks. At the moment, you need to be greater
> than that value. This would add a condition at the other end.
>
> It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit.
>
> A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to have
> the same timestamp. This would force the off by 1 and the correct value to
> give the same result.
>
>> If that's the case, do you have a better candidate?
>
>
> I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork,
> especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-23 11:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-20 21:22 Jorge Timón
2015-06-20 22:08 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-21 10:31 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-21 10:54 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-23 11:10 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-07-31 17:40 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Thomas Kerin
2015-07-31 20:37 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-29 21:21 ` 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='CABm2gDrrqubbZ7MjDppu-eFxJGcydVoSAK2SC=-s-0txYX6GRQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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