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 796D0C22 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:03:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF1011A0 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so2208176wic.1 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:03:43 -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=QL/RxPpc3bkOBjweHzGfIfYnz71p/o/afVbnNF2fAvg=; b=Z7lzJYWom5OqjpnJZSC+JMbriLOb0n7HCsxa1ueCaLkuzu3dAynjWbhX5TNwiYTtwq 6mD38biXWKTCiEmjWyrEnbE1+Eqm2HpgXyAjckQ7muxagJMAqhE/65Nk5PIX9bRvnJpQ PkNA+Q2UppA+SSNwKyrXoz7zqLSKXZvA8TRAxtXCkHlGxoiUFpaOcbDPSLgB19JSEY7w /jPq1/S3YRrzSKaxuInsyqlelb0cqlurh8dQK4pF7RT817UDKe+30Qk1VepetgX3IMxu K5HkGfMmw2NL7tRY/gmYmdYgocePfxAKl3yF1c5CvZ1c416v0O8QUSxFDAWUZdMwL2wp i4Fw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlDJZnnYsIZEXlsGydPAqT71YSZ2fwXZJ3VEPtFQuBe1lwO/hIy9bhYm3Rbe7apkCETnac1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.84.225 with SMTP id c1mr460301wiz.92.1442437423534; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:03:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:03:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Tier Nolan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0418282e3da8bd051fe3a2e3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no 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: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:03:45 -0000 --f46d0418282e3da8bd051fe3a2e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I understand your proposal, but I don't see what it accomplishes compared to applying the new rule from the start (in your own blocks) and wait for 95% for consensus activation (which is my preference and it's much simpler to implement). What are the disadvantages of my approach? What are the advantages of yours= ? On Sep 16, 2015 4:57 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrot= e: > >> >> On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid >> blocks (under the rule). >> >> You shouldn't rely on that, some may start applying the restrictions in >> their own blocks at 0% and others only at 90%. Until it becomes a consen= sus >> rule it is just part of the standard policy (and we shouldn't rely on no= des >> following the standard policy). >> > > It would be a consensus rule. If >75% of the blocks in the last 2016 > window have the bit set, then reject all blocks that have the bit set and > fail to meet the rule. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --f46d0418282e3da8bd051fe3a2e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I understand your proposal, but I don't see what it acco= mplishes compared to applying the new rule from the start (in your own bloc= ks) and wait for 95% for consensus activation (which is my preference and i= t's much simpler to implement).
What are the disadvantages of my approach? What are the advantages of yours= ?

On Sep 16, 2015 4:57 PM, "Tier Nolan via bi= tcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jor= ge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:


On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid bl= ocks (under the rule).

You shouldn't rely on that, some may start a= pplying the restrictions in their own blocks at 0% and others only at 90%. = Until it becomes a consensus rule it is just part of the standard policy (a= nd we shouldn't rely on nodes following the standard policy).
=


It would be a consensus rule.= =C2=A0 If >75% of the blocks in the last 2016 window have the bit set, t= hen reject all blocks that have the bit set and fail to meet the rule.
<= /div>


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--f46d0418282e3da8bd051fe3a2e3--