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 DA74AE6C for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:48:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7505B31 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:48:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkao3 with SMTP id o3so97318175vka.2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:48:57 -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=Cla99vGBRE9cmopOu3HNCRiaqKXvthPuCJoLHGtza8o=; b=OdjizcoIWsnbRgMgz9ZNWXhN/th+efv/PBMk8hpC2l0s6YPUOSc6kTw/80JyoEbPd0 E1po2ATB6poc/I3Cu0oSNPsYKUdzimUDmxTvA0ehoOOWdphZMjQOS9Sk+i8gIeJVcFAN SQ2aSNiKV+uJCEx0DGwoDyKRZdTyBnGPg7vOPyNTVNGDjr5A/sZE3EiC2ivSH6i5i8Ff BQ30xHoNLiIgIgoUDgRKhFuC7I4AsXWLL1o0+/4J2cImebx0K/jsGXKUQdov8ZWaULZk /eaBIaB5XwE8UbY9oCNbCHxJL8ifpdzOsxj2fZWRp3CFn6SPX6Q5exP4D5oRHOxH02bL X2Zg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.7.1 with SMTP id 1mr20261192vkh.10.1442436537828; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:48:57 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22 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 20:48:59 -0000 --001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > No, 95% is safer and will produce less orphaned blocks. > The point of the 75% is just as a test run. Enforcement wouldn't happen until 95%. At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid blocks (under the rule). --001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <= ;jtimon@jtimon.cc= > wrote:

No, 95%= is safer and will produce less orphaned blocks.

T= he point of the 75% is just as a test run.=C2=A0 Enforcement wouldn't h= appen until 95%.

At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then th= ey should be creating valid blocks (under the rule).
<= /div> --001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22--