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 00D9D14F2 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:42 +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 BD69E1B2 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id DE14E1409B7; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:24:36 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Tier Nolan In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:49:05 +0930 Message-ID: <878u84ikxi.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:42 -0000 Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev writes: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Rusty Russell > wrote: >> You need a timeout: an ancient (non-mining, thus undetectable) node >> should never fork itself off the network because someone reused a failed >> BIP bit. >> > > I meant if the 2nd bit was part of the BIP. One of the 2 bits is "FOR" and > the other is "AGAINST". If against hits 25%, then it is deemed a failure. > > The 2nd bit wouldn't be used normally. This means that proposals can be > killed quickly if they are obviously going to fail. This could be added if we approach one failed soft fork every 5 weeks, I guess (or it could be just for specific soft forks). Cheers, Rusty.