From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Version bits proposal
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:26:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OVskd1JAE5g-WW2eDiPcxysYhbv-NsOYu7yKZvzu88VSg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150527101516.GB25814@savin.petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3979 bytes --]
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> The median time mechanism is basically a way for hashing power to show
> what time they think it is. Equally, the nVersion soft-fork mechanism is
> a way for hashing power to show what features they want to support.
>
>
Fair enough. It means slightly more processing, but the median time could
be cached in the header index, so no big deal.
Block counts are inconvenient for planning, as there's no guarantee
> they'll actually happen in any particular time frame, forward and back.
>
I don't think the deadline needs to be set that accurately. A roughly 6
month deadline should be fine, but as you say a majority of miners is
needed to abuse the median time and it is already a miner poll.
Perhaps the number of blocks used in the median could be increased to
reduce "noise".
The median time could be median of the last 144 blocks plus 12 hours.
> If you assume no large reorganizations, your table of known BIPs can
> just as easily be a list of block heights even if the median time
> mechanism is used.
>
I think it makes it easier to write the code. It reduced the state that
needs to be stored per BIP. You don't need to check if the previous bips
were all accepted.
Each bit is assigned to a particular BIP for a particular range of times
(or blocks).
If block numbers were used for the deadline, you just need to check the
block index for the deadline block.
enum {
BIP_INACTIVE = 0,
BIP_ACTIVE,
BIP_LOCKED
BIP_INVALID_BLOCK,
}
int GetBIPState(block, bip)
{
if (block.height == bip.deadline) // Bit must be set to match
locked/unlocked at deadline
{
int bipState = check_supermajority(...);
if (bipState == BIP_LOCKED && (block.nVersion & bip.bit)
return BIP_LOCKED;
if (bipState != BIP_LOCKED && (block.nVersion & (~bip.bit)))
return BIP_INACTIVE;
return BIP_INVALID_BLOCK;
}
if (block.height > deadline) // Look at the deadline block to determine
if the BIP is locked
return (block_index[deadline].nVersion & bip_bit) != 0 ? BIP_LOCKED
: BIP_INACTIVE;
if (block.height < startline + I) // BIP cannot activate/lock until
startline + implicit window size
return INACTIVE;
return check_supermajority(....) // Check supermajority of bit
}
The block at height deadline would indicate if the BIP was locked in.
Block time could still be used as long as the block height was set after
that. The deadline_time could be in six months. The startline height
could be the current block height and the deadline_height could be
startline + 35000.
The gives roughly
start time = now
deadline time = now + six months
deadline height = now + eight months
The deadline height is the block height when the bit is returned to the
pool but the deadline time is when the BIP has to be accepted.
It also helps with the warning system. For each block height, there is a
set of known BIP bits that are allowed. Once the final deadline is passed,
the expected mask is zeros.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
> On May 27, 2015 11:35 AM, "Tier Nolan" <tier.nolan@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> > Was the intention to change the 95% rule. You need 750 of the last 1000
> to activate and then must wait at least 1000 for implication?
>
> You need 75% to start applying it, 95% to start rejecting blocks that
> don't apply it.
>
I think the phrasing is ambiguous. I was just asking for clarification.
"Whenever I out of any W *subsequent* blocks (regardless of the block
itself) have bit B set,"
That suggests that the I of W blocks for the 95% rule must happen after
activation. This makes the rule checking harder. Easier to use the
current system, where blocks that were part of the 750 rule also count
towards the 95% rule.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5768 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-27 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-27 1:48 Pieter Wuille
2015-05-27 2:31 ` Douglas Roark
2015-05-27 3:46 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-05-27 3:51 ` Jorge Timón
2015-05-27 9:35 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-27 10:15 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-27 11:26 ` Tier Nolan [this message]
2015-05-27 22:52 ` Sergio Lerner
2015-05-28 1:05 ` Patrick Strateman
2015-05-28 7:51 ` Christian Decker
2015-05-28 8:11 ` Adam Back
2015-06-01 14:50 ` Potter QQ
2015-05-27 10:15 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-03 20:42 ` Pieter Wuille
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=CAE-z3OVskd1JAE5g-WW2eDiPcxysYhbv-NsOYu7yKZvzu88VSg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=tier.nolan@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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