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 678DB1EA1 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:30:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91EB138 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id BC1D0140180; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:30:39 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Tom Harding , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org In-Reply-To: <5602F075.4000102@thinlink.com> References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <5602F075.4000102@thinlink.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:35:47 +0930 Message-ID: <8737xwhdac.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 02:30:44 -0000 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev writes: > 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. 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. Thanks, Rusty.