From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus fork activation thresholds: Block.nTime vs median time vs block.nHeight
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:16:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0c10SDHCBy5=iPKVvsNPmKr2ejUxLp0rJPZmPRPQpfig@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoxr4yY6XPZOEG0CF_iPO+b1H3_yFoKnYa68Y4b=Tcwrw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1262 bytes --]
I still think using the version and timestamp fields in the block header
are simplest and best.
Advantages:
Available to SPV nodes with no change to the network protocol
Available after headers downloaded, before full block data is available
Once well past a fork, allows all block validation except validation
against the UTXO to happen in parallel, out-of-order, independent of any
other block.
Disadvantages:
Not monotonically increasing
I think discussion about transactions in the memory pool are just a
distraction: no matter what criteria is used (timestamp, height, median
time), a blockchain re-organization could mean the validity of transactions
you've accepted into the memory pool (if you're accepting transactions that
switch from valid to invalid at the consensus change -- Core tries hard not
to do that via IsStandard policy) must be re-evaluated.
I don't strongly care if median time or block timestamp is used, I think
either will work. I don't like height, there are too many cases where the
time is known but the block height isn't (see, for example, the
max-outputs-in-a-transaction sanity check computation at line 190 of
bitcoin-tx.cpp -- bitcoin-tx.cpp has no idea what the current block height
is).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1602 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-30 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-29 20:27 Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 18:16 ` Gavin Andresen [this message]
2015-08-04 20:02 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-04 21:29 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-05 19:29 ` 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='CABsx9T0c10SDHCBy5=iPKVvsNPmKr2ejUxLp0rJPZmPRPQpfig@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gavinandresen@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/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