From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 969F115D6 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:34:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40A79290 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:34:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so47535818pac.0 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Bc7rDdg/MTMIloUknot5zdElnhCr6jUabqedtGlT88I=; b=ZRaU/vHjySY3qkXjOhlPyR/Ash5b4xlWS6GFMakBjnlf97roipC7l5tVCekEfXYk/T pKtVJwWGZGiQuvkd1ciskvrQy0gLe9oOZiCGmLbH9GwB2SGOHJQUJripRZ8ac1Ox70Sb l9SHcOlGm4coJNRQzJkMeI9aOfL8v23kHaW+QZUFnBpiffbU2MUT9JvKh34OAuoDRMRC 3NGaF55o3Q6IaQc4Ih6s6jdBSBej43f0tvnEErPkxbKLyDhukzXGDNcx78E+u8p1axgh CLiHMvx+45/v0WCPWVzGE/XY8Sb/fGY3um7kTMmFadCuhWdy2g3De21ivJbNTnxDlb9X yk0g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUfJXC4R3RcVqhVQgK+/OtWelWIXfL4V/2Ov6qSIKTLhVcuD4yKZhXpZBCP7V8FL7euSK9 X-Received: by 10.66.155.9 with SMTP id vs9mr38538148pab.63.1443033270002; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id df2sm9283060pad.19.2015.09.23.11.34.28 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> From: Tom Harding Message-ID: <5602F075.4000102@thinlink.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:33:25 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:34:30 -0000 On 9/13/2015 11:56 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > '''Success: Activation Delay''' > The consensus rules related to ''locked-in'' soft fork will be enforced in > the second retarget period; ie. there is a one retarget period in > which the remaining 5% can upgrade. At the that activation block and > after, the bit B may be reused for a different soft fork. > Rather than a simple one-period delay, should there be a one-period "burn-in" to show sustained support of the threshold? During this period, support must continuously remain above the threshold. Any lapse resets to inactivated state. With a simple delay, you can have the embarrassing situation where support falls off during the delay period and there is far below threshold support just moments prior to enforcement, but enforcement happens anyway. BIP 101 has this problem too.