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 5EDC98D4 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:51:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f169.google.com (mail-ua0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9B2E151 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:51:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z22so16988744uah.1 for ; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 02:51:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ncsBMUf15H1zztwPkEB70Ydm1FEmTQurTp03+s1UNWc=; b=eMwxuM/IrnF6Lo8yAy6yUFkBGJEJfNXH2pEtuxmqeujLqqdUbO2KF0IkZ5Hm13XQ8d QBlY/6Tz1MuSeJuDxIDeXowAkXLG4qe7LDzWcM5+A+bxhd0ISKTcv76jJYPjPWMHZmPj pK8rH2FjOxDvvfkCLPUIeziByoQuzyKkfkXWMoei0mhjDrndvJY9IQHoSYKjYWNXPh/Q tTqb3IPHj8t/VAaSPJEeCI91F+he0Ykq497AC9w9VYV8R4noXqeoO9rhjCLmLb1f6rgy bpS/l9/IzAxzQigzm5I6b0VMoV40vndMHK3jjAgvpQ+Al5gG8E/5aJeUeomU5o5YE+Ed WjjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ncsBMUf15H1zztwPkEB70Ydm1FEmTQurTp03+s1UNWc=; b=lopTsH3GF1nBSHBWJiLoXc4ZzJJU9L8IWvGyn1NnhsILGMEiRDQTE6/hPTAXV5seQD dDDTMnuyABIi2K+pO3I6XLVHfiLN/5TdNXYIMmC+0A60PO7CE6snh5O9xE+vpBVnerTV AgqpZkrxGBRdrjR3ESDJPy5fNB2lkk8X3JT17OKMUosL3WvdGOxIJ8d6vEZQpeD0ah6E AdeNb33m2IIImFH2ow6ijt+upgjYXrkSC3hIB9UG8C4ANRcvGF3b8Pcxg+Pg+PjI/PFh XJrtysQKnhnPpRv3P6mTScKKE0TLEcqKeEjE8eEQeZxxBoqWu88Xy7mtIDkH2yQMoWni aTDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113JbvPNJA3vqVW9Uvh7KzNDAvgUXZE1WtZulsXWY6AMwyGzv3Fn g1a5McFxUXRugNnS1rXYboBtTyZglnBq X-Received: by 10.176.94.131 with SMTP id y3mr193998uag.21.1499421077743; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 02:51:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.52.85 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.52.85 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:51:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 11:51:16 +0200 Message-ID: To: shaolinfry Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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] Height based vs block time based thresholds X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:51:19 -0000 --f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" What if you want height based but lockinontimeout = false ? On 7 Jul 2017 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated > the BIP text in the following proposals > > "lockinontimeout" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 the BIP9 > implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispense with > it entirely. > > So the two changes BIP8 brings is BIP9 modified to use height not time, > and remove the veto failed state. > > Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8- > height > BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master... > shaolinfry:bip8-height > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds > > Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they > are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable > to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay > activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second > you would never meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty > of hiking the difficulty dramatically). > > On the other hand, the exact date of a height based thresholds is hard to > predict a long time in advance due to difficulty fluctuations. However, > there is certainty at a given block height and it's easy to monitor. > > If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to amend BIP8 to be > height based. I originally omitted height based thresholds in the interests > of simplicity of review - but now that the proposal has been widely > reviewed it would be a trivial amendment. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What if you want height based but=C2=A0lockinontimeout =3D false ?<= /div>

On 7 Jul 201= 7 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I= have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated th= e BIP text in the following proposals



--------= Original Message --------
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height base= d vs block time based thresholds

Some people h= ave criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they are confu= sing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable to miners = fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay activation - = for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second you would nev= er meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty of hiking the= difficulty dramatically).

On the other hand, = the exact date of a height based thresholds is hard to predict a long time = in advance due to difficulty fluctuations. However, there is certainty at a= given block height and it's easy to monitor.

<= div>If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to amend BIP8 to be h= eight based. I originally omitted height based thresholds in the interests = of simplicity of review - but now that the proposal has been widely reviewe= d it would be a trivial amendment.




______= _________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5--