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 7DF2D1366 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:04:48 +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 AF9A3145 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so55071060wic.0 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:04:46 -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=z9xSpMS8d8UjalMyOCzbiWbUfOtuitq38OPjDfLVBLc=; b=ipXrgmuSRoLsJSkFxEgny7zYGfqGTSCB09j1i52Nrh9YxooqatS4wxuUX30lt3oR6J mdJBkeoJJTuP4XxhqqmTIm5ZVuOa/LCNq1550Y5471zCr4SdYmLz81m9rAtKapP9ZfKP L2rDI78NRzoME2LPu5p0TdYxU8ZJYSNjKLMYNFY7kvXt7aMhIGFBlrtEreZoaNYTjfTH pg2Hh1En3M94yZYE8d8W+EvLULfR6RnlcX0+Ov4sWz1KB2RXzFssS6m4lTDW3r2353SQ DI/l3oLbhZzYqofk+a1a4xA2CHR1oBLNop/ZEofkT/XXTXMBZr+lONWetuCaeJveSDCD DtBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8E6nWm07jpwTcWbGsNEeiWcIW+9D+ra2LMWrMtjQ2m4sZyUeiEt9zfQjg0GS0/11RMEo8 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.186.98 with SMTP id fj2mr1936284wic.58.1442639086095; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87eghwiu4k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87eghwiu4k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 07:04:45 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Rusty Russell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c263d844237f052012964b X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 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: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:04:48 -0000 --001a11c263d844237f052012964b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks will replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in favor of using the height from the start. This is "being discussed" in a thread branched from bip99's discussion. Anyway, is this proposing to use the block time or the median block time? For some hardforks/softforks the block time complicates the implementation (ie in acceptToMemoryPool) as discussed in the mentioned thread. On Sep 19, 2015 1:24 AM, "Rusty Russell" wrote: > Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev > writes: > > I agree on using height vs time. Rusty, what do you mean by being easie= r > > for bip writers? How is writing "block x" any harder than writing "date > y". > > Three years from drafting is reasonable. How many blocks is that? Hmm, > better make it 6 years of blocks just in case we have a hash race. > > Deployment speed is measured in months, not blocks. It's hard enough to > guess without adding another variable. > > Cheers, > Rusty. > --001a11c263d844237f052012964b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/= hardforks will replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's= an argument in favor of using the height from the start. This is "bei= ng discussed" in a thread branched from bip99's discussion.
Anyway, is this proposing to use the block time or the median block time? For some hardforks/softforks the block time complicates the implementation = (ie in acceptToMemoryPool) as discussed in the mentioned thread.

On Sep 19, 2015 1:24 AM, "Rusty Russell&quo= t; <rusty@rustcorp.com.au&g= t; wrote:
Jorge Ti= m=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> I agree on using height vs time. Rusty, what do you mean by being easi= er
> for bip writers? How is writing "block x" any harder than wr= iting "date y".

Three years from drafting is reasonable.=C2=A0 How many blocks is that?=C2= =A0 Hmm,
better make it 6 years of blocks just in case we have a hash race.

Deployment speed is measured in months, not blocks.=C2=A0 It's hard eno= ugh to
guess without adding another variable.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--001a11c263d844237f052012964b--