From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C2681A95
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:58:18 +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 CC0B6243
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
	id B55EA140180; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 06:58:15 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Jorge =?utf-8?Q?Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrLGHHn96JVpUX3kHcW0qx2fieAaYydb5EC_SGh=2hEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAE-z3OWLteNyBWuYSkYLZNteOGjDch_fViOV2kpWCaZkXsbu4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CABm2gDqh=Dv2Ygctg+jEt61N_nJDRBMqdZypSPtmfM2QrY4AYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OXATJ6HGKqU=vxc8k-yCMAMwXiWQJxvO3D_O256_ZODtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDppFsTbh3JtdJkAkV_GzKFYAOLiEmtQPCgS9O6b7eWFuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87eghwiu4k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CABm2gDrLGHHn96JVpUX3kHcW0qx2fieAaYydb5EC_SGh=2hEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:26:43 +0930
Message-ID: <8737y9iw04.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, 
	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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:58:18 -0000

Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> writes:
> I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks will
> replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in
> favor of using the height from the start. This is "being discussed" in a
> thread branched from bip99's discussion.

Thanks, I'll have to dig through bitcoin-dev and find it.

> Anyway, is this proposing to use the block time or the median block time?
> For some hardforks/softforks the block time complicates the implementation
> (ie in acceptToMemoryPool) as discussed in the mentioned thread.

BIP text is pretty clear that it's median block time.

This is only for timeout, not for soft fork rule change (which *is* 2016
blocks after 95% is reached).

Cheers,
Rusty.