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 774C11CD6 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:42:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F951AF for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so44823814obb.2 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:42:15 -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=7bwNXiV/vVtDn/LqIdlzdbp4na88IdQXjTGJI5blAbw=; b=UzN8vU5MgJlnjjwANPituMRg4zg5lfIub91gOBC7OcVjTumkXIddrw/obEcVW4eg8G TLpLUgffDJimAuF7cQj3U9NSFTwzC9I0raxsgvb4EW+cwV1ew9Wc/a2/fvbD+h3GGU2o 5o829F7nTcj5i0+dcZKxlC0G2lZSmcG/XHgUXjOwPxYYeS7h6jeSdqw0WyKR4JHA0vf8 SN5DmcCiTZYWqoxCyZG3ips4b1xer6VBv8S6uNSYF9Ij3bKHmVn2mKTtWCLJtdyYsK3E l4atierfiwYL+gA/HEvN7tZ3sh3JTaeKgr9HTsLa4ddF6111bXGkkp2mPKvi+MOnsi8Z iQsw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMxJqOnSnn8t+ROEnB0e8uBWhPrNXwopTN+pOqO62ih4NR4k8/AZ41eynqFx39Q1BlAbvW X-Received: by 10.60.177.129 with SMTP id cq1mr4071686oec.42.1443656535211; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id xa6sm1350648oeb.15.2015.09.30.16.42.14 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT) To: Rusty Russell , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <5602F075.4000102@thinlink.com> <8737xwhdac.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> From: Tom Harding Message-ID: <560C733F.3080608@thinlink.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:41:51 -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: <8737xwhdac.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, 30 Sep 2015 23:42:16 -0000 On 9/29/2015 7:05 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev > writes: >> 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. > Yeah, but Gavin's right. If you can't account for all the corner cases, > all you can do is keep it simple and well defined. > At least you changed the BIP to make it possible to see a fall off in support, even though nothing is done about it.