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 B9DD21136 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:59:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132F9277 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so28688642wic.1 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:59:44 -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=sJqsxknokH6leF+G5dogkoU/DykHka3zbXqem3s2uZM=; b=EmJWw/0OTphVBbs51QXZFbYtuX606xv9/3TvvQmd6zIJa4QJV4Osvt8HextSgYHfUk QpRtJa3fdSuhBLXN+Db9uBZJmq46/ewsq88KNLqYrMTAKvs11nLCFmkWacLA9GYIapf1 BeQ6GVOEuLacRnPDKvTvQdrlhFPk8BtRTXqKw/JAzUN8FfaMgHajUAnaAiXKOAZyFKBn MQjTtvR8qDi0J/R/tapewAaSJZNudkkyjk7qUb/aAAaYiKSqLdtfzQax8cl6vumHDndG 20vCOqmYNGuj7Nq/AeKQL1/wXWfRGJkBqbfGO5QORXXZ7aXW9cqHBIv/FVgh/bScHzXw NPLg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMDA/Z0bFX06h6SPTKgSBQvNQ6TOcW5ySwJWqBc2s00sTBhCJCi4dVOLP9jXdqVYb7CVPu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.58.40 with SMTP id n8mr69685362wjq.134.1442498383960; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.48.12 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:59:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Tier Nolan 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] [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: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:59:46 -0000 On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The advantage of enforcing the rule when 75% is reached (but only for blocks > with the bit set) is that miners get early notification that they have > implemented the rule incorrectly. They might produce blocks that they > think are fine, but which aren't. I'm still unconvinced, but thanks, this is what I was asking for.