From: shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail•ch>
To: shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail•ch>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 01:52:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <q2ezd-tOTBF_3zLOedB36jYCuszrKYS-9BHS_Unle1NipWFTWX-aDwsfy5XrAB2D02SwojA4C_vDIyZa-VEh9IlQalF27HYG5C5KAP9096o=@protonmail.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <KXL-Ie0q1dKTlbQ2XCyTRCzoQLND-Q7M9CFvYTfhjgeiZ4K3knpetQSwwLviO6whuHXQnFPg-rg8q1xW8w5mNnYFxalvx5_9Vci63lC9ju4=@protonmail.ch>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1536 bytes --]
I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated the BIP text in the following proposals
"lockinontimeout" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 the BIP9 implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispense with it entirely.
So the two changes BIP8 brings is BIP9 modified to use height not time, and remove the veto failed state.
Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-height
BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-height
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
> Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second you would never meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty of hiking the difficulty dramatically).
> On the other hand, the exact date of a height based thresholds is hard to predict a long time in advance due to difficulty fluctuations. However, there is certainty at a given block height and it's easy to monitor.
> If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to amend BIP8 to be height based. I originally omitted height based thresholds in the interests of simplicity of review - but now that the proposal has been widely reviewed it would be a trivial amendment.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2221 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 5:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-05 1:30 shaolinfry
2017-07-05 2:25 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2017-07-05 3:39 ` Bram Cohen
2017-07-05 3:50 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-05 4:00 ` shaolinfry
2017-07-05 4:10 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-05 19:44 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2017-07-06 17:20 ` Jorge Timón
2017-07-06 17:41 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-07-05 8:06 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-05 8:54 ` Kekcoin
2017-07-06 20:43 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-07 5:52 ` shaolinfry [this message]
2017-07-07 9:51 ` 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='q2ezd-tOTBF_3zLOedB36jYCuszrKYS-9BHS_Unle1NipWFTWX-aDwsfy5XrAB2D02SwojA4C_vDIyZa-VEh9IlQalF27HYG5C5KAP9096o=@protonmail.ch' \
--to=shaolinfry@protonmail$(echo .)ch \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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