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 F06A51470 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:57:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69F8DA9 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:57:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so109419892vkf.3 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:57:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=L4wvmiuIsalHL1+jiQhh5BLfIZK6mWVV5sM6oH+wtjk=; b=CwXQXRt0TrJXpiaPVMaz6I4vkqSaMqhWWVPGtQxdOoq77bMXnK5sfrl9fiAThyMP3+ mXblZPRhEXGKAAnY9L0enZrm4ZUgrAgxZXQjqVg022fJUnHxofzp2dIBuh2NqSNf0+87 7y+H+BovPKVuQSS95zQ7Brro3OAeGmdl1FU9Ji5g/619hafuw5mWHpgR66uz8pXSxXZW CG0YzH5CUPT340zKU+oXOJAncgEDUZJ4a8RUs+VXt4xTSkdSIjQMqyMCfawq1LRmVQIC uph6gLRoCEEqCEf21Z+nnaqU24UOpqYWZ467hhDKmuNRGNvZSsyBy72F5meKcmAixcND S4pw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.107.213 with SMTP id k82mr31671287vki.5.1442437062702; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:57:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:57:42 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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 20:57:44 -0000 --001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n 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 > 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 consens= us > rule it is just part of the standard policy (and we shouldn't rely on nod= es > 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. --001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge 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 consen= sus rule.=C2=A0 If >75% of the blocks in the last 2016 window have the b= it set, then reject all blocks that have the bit set and fail to meet the r= ule.

--001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c--