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 5C2681A95 for ; 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 ; 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 To: Jorge =?utf-8?Q?Tim=C3=B3n?= In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87eghwiu4k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> 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 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: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:58:18 -0000 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n 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.