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 9573F3C8 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:37:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC086269 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicgj17 with SMTP id gj17so32525409wic.1 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT) 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=kUu4g9oP1btT48m1j3qDjTz3h421DcyNtnj0gzxoFu8=; b=KcsTNOtU52wLxGAHIyYOhdgLxlGkhy2mHpXL+hiFyNr9FmqLZXPCWG2bT5BxCT/aGg ZeCidNMXDBF2DMEJtwPbAQGiSTvU/EuUdWHTz2uPEoIu4xkSesWcL0ZiPrsPNmJcHe9a AJLPMx0GswguELP7yrMx8VabE/+VMTGnicblH5TiURD3+5g3Svsgi6X6rRcTZUUljzWi FqCjFqaLkqmpFmIZTyHVXlUiAepMhhnkYheMIr8cok87mumwZXnD1XILWRCxTVuOfpkl +rQogv7CcAEByhvGu4Dq5yz0pbxKKrVczq0PsDjMJChbHBQT/9A7o5USV22GXDLtlLAI AZqw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkMotFtbvcoVKhWCvvyETdk4uFiX/zKmbLPjKtm0Iqv5EIzBWZQmktYMRu9QckXo+egdpt MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr9308152wjc.109.1438375063541; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55BBB32B.3080802@gmail.com> References: <55BBB32B.3080802@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:37:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Thomas Kerin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks) 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, 31 Jul 2015 20:37:45 -0000 On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I really think there should be a document before a BIP number is assigned. There was a document from the start, but after I got the BIP number, I was renaming the file, moving from org-mode to mediawiki and getting the code ready. I'm sorry, I broke the old link to the document, here's the new one: https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-0099.mediawiki Maybe I should create a PR already to have a permanent link, I don't know. As said in the document, the code is now here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.11...jtimon:hardfork-timewarp-0.11 Also, I should mention that one particular discussion related to this BIP (whether we should use Block.nTime, median time or block.nHeight for the activation thresholds) is being discussed in: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009731.html The BIP is currently assuming that the preferred choice for all non-emergency uncontroversial hardforks is defining a starting block.nHeight after which miners start confirming their upgrade. Once the 95% threshold is reached the hardfork takes effect. Long after that, after that first block enforcing the new rules is deeply buried, that check can simply replaced by re-defining the threshold height not with the height when miners started voting, but simply with the height in which the rules started being enforced for the first time (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5966/files ).