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 3FDED482 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:10:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE3A14B for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so19003639wib.1 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:10:46 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=22AQK8RLYbj91UNOmzAPWEiIHpovXMSZ+2H6dSHVsps=; b=cB+Or09ip7baOCw0G57Is5vx+EqoK+4Q0F6Oll1HgH+YQ8/mMXXxoN4x8XVHcLsxvc PZEv6w/MiDblVlZuBNK0HVzdRNgtxtIfDBDikjizVihzCt/5kDIEfyZtBczYKRfpEFQm ZSXix/m/8jby2hNGoUpuhPB8I2wNNl9xhadofe7SX3KxS4xUpQMWzt4M87uFCNq5dq2d m0PwQCZ0rifO3rv9yEpb4La44uNJLOrl963Mo8MrE8t94djjwWJvVDWmDKjIV+MXt/Z0 gL1ct6hT63TZN0HpTOL0+qnduIzP8rsTduYkm+mbTUGZM0aUtcohisE+jSRX2njAYk60 vpMg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTSIXU1NKvVUDug+iaWEVgRWsOzdDySSfK1QkmDI2IRr3iO3Ojl0jVNbuI3XucTcCd7N/X MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.21.175 with SMTP id w15mr16193697wie.58.1437649846044; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:10:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:10:45 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:10:50 -0000 Discussions about whether to get miner's confirmation on uncontroversial hardforks or not, and about whether to use nHeight, nMedianTime or just use nTime are spreading all around. Hopefully getting a BIP number (even though this is still a draft) will help concentrating discussions about deployment of uncontroversial hardforks to a single place. Greg, can I get a BIP number for this? On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Tier Nolan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wro= te: >> >> You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a >> hardfork? How so? > > > The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of > the median of the previous 11 blocks. At the moment, you need to be grea= ter > than that value. This would add a condition at the other end. > > It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit. > > A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to hav= e > the same timestamp. This would force the off by 1 and the correct value = to > give the same result. > >> If that's the case, do you have a better candidate? > > > I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork, > especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >