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 72E821068 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:00:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (mail-ob0-f170.google.com [209.85.214.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50714144 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id wb13so73036450obb.1 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:00:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zgfuXqGG6aIM8TTsWSw1PKOLDxVvlnz5kmn6rJbcvWk=; b=lnq4oHngh8b/2JaX7p/D4LIxEa3rC7oCDSgfUYD81HYw7VoJ6PGACGpb0EDN2xzVnG 85jG+Xrdv57iKvbJSAqIlJ2buSUPdydex8BKzxJm5bQLAIwbTIDGVtyt86uXkICgcrSC IBALAh1nwDGHAB8tkB4AnMuDMI4bykoAQ4QlP0WJ7g02HJfv4dFS80TwxtyAEyw3mtv8 to12kTQFFyXIY+vFjiXwjdzocDhxxOcgOXgF4Oph5SOiFIKGcCcJbrxkYpAU5nq1eZJc xvQoDgVuCUt0EWDz9K0k3DMQfHuqityfMFQJnXX68cC/Au6Utpmszhyl7rsmbWXex0uK 4Kpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zgfuXqGG6aIM8TTsWSw1PKOLDxVvlnz5kmn6rJbcvWk=; b=TLVX3M2WlXgNHDChh3F+ECFaxHWd4PlxYVR5eIzYVF7PT26jLj81Y4Jex+PJLbCuh1 9AQyYPIvswX9PkNFO2CFpuCVl810YN2g3DepbGNXhxs0bxWISf2w2XYL0WezlpNqgZs7 x0RcyScrxN4C4PF0l9vTwzyk+eEKxuEZ51GPDVodP4Ko1yRtA4GLO3fFGILHbtuM/mw5 zZFD9PoyaG/ZtK2kAE+PXK7HpsI5V6os8ZLo5jTtepkwLdHvSStsZaBhCHer34JrSsAZ JWksnCzrwRlidgG2xluWwwIW4qnn0q9KN5F/bEFxHrLIY9i9G4CP7bI4qaEEL+mTs2BI qUHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTgIUZU3EaNEC797fqwcrgZxBTeZtmseOciApUk0S5xQLpsdiRBDgy/LYqWJXzlTScL1H0goIp+SPCB5g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.73.225 with SMTP id o1mr8895354obv.80.1454608849603; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.157.17.117 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 10:00:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:00:49 -0600 Message-ID: From: Bryan Bishop To: jl2012 , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:01:35 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork bit BIP 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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:00:51 -0000 --089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:56 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > past the triggering block. A block-chain re-org of two thousand or >> more blocks on the main Bitcoin chain is unthinkable-- the economic >> chaos would be massive, and the reaction to such a drastic (and >> extremely unlikely) event would certainly be a hastily imposed >> checkpoint to get everybody back onto the chain that everybody was >> using for economic transactions. >> > > No, the "triggering block" you mentioned is NOT where the hardfork starts. > Using BIP101 as an example, the hardfork starts when the first >1MB is > mined. For people who failed to upgrade, the "grace period" is always zero, > which is the moment they realize a hardfork. > Are there any plans written down anywhere about the "hastily imposed checkpoint" scenario? As far as I know, we would have to check-point on both blockchains because of the way that hard-forks work (creating two separate chains and/or networks). Nothing about this should be an "emergency", we have all the time in the world to prepare a safe and responsible way to upgrade the network without unilaterally declaring obsolescence. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:56 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
past the triggering block. A block-ch= ain re-org of two thousand or
more blocks on the main Bitcoin chain is unthinkable-- the economic
chaos would be massive, and the reaction to such a drastic (and
extremely unlikely) event would certainly be a hastily imposed
checkpoint to get everybody back onto the chain that everybody was
using for economic transactions.

 No, the "triggering block" you mentioned is NOT where the hardfor= k starts. Using BIP101 as an example, the hardfork starts when the first &g= t;1MB is mined. For people who failed to upgrade, the "grace period&qu= ot; is always zero, which is the moment they realize a hardfork.

Are there any plans written down an= ywhere about the "hastily imposed checkpoint" scenario? As far as= I know, we would have to check-point on both blockchains because of the wa= y that hard-forks work (creating two separate chains and/or networks). Noth= ing about this should be an "emergency", we have all the time in = the world to prepare a safe and responsible way to upgrade the network with= out unilaterally declaring=C2=A0obsolescence.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f--