MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <246AA3BE-570D-4B88-A63D-AC76CB2B0CB8@toom.im>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbrMyk-=OnQ-3UvnF_8brhn+X2NqRPbo5xUXsbcZpc0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjbATqf8DXGF7obw9a=371zQ_S0EgTapnUmukAVenTneQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+c4Zozac8=aMrAJ1N_6SR9eBD+w0e70cEnk9CG_2oZ72AS-8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhsKD8jd9Y9+ngXY5tKUheO3d4P1b47eYL=Uzpat+KJ2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<751DFAA9-9013-4C54-BC1E-5F7ECB7469CC@gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBiT5=ss9e=iac6J-A=85okF0zxMeV7H4z9-Qfx3CAWHXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<246AA3BE-570D-4B88-A63D-AC76CB2B0CB8@toom.im>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:01:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhxnxnQQ-SpWuJ-+_uxRwXkgcU07jkYdZ8BcBwVDyW-vg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation &
 moral hazard
Precedence: list

--047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Dec 26, 2015 23:55, "Jonathan Toomim" <j@toom.im> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it
guarantees that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily.
>
> Yes, 75% plus a grace period is better. I prefer a grace period of about
4000 to 8000 blocks (1 to 2 months).

I think that's extremely short, even assuming there is no controversy about
changing the rules at all. Things like BIP65 and BIP66 already took
significantly longer than that, were uncontroversial, and only need miner
adoption. Full node adoption is even slower.

I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial hardfork
is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.

For a controversial one, not at all.

-- 
Pieter

--047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Dec 26, 2015 23:55, &quot;Jonathan Toomim&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:j@=
toom.im">j@toom.im</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it g=
uarantees that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily.=
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Yes, 75% plus a grace period is better. I prefer a grace period of abo=
ut 4000 to 8000 blocks (1 to 2 months).</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I think that&#39;s extremely short, even assuming there is n=
o controversy about changing the rules at all. Things like BIP65 and BIP66 =
already took significantly longer than that, were uncontroversial, and only=
 need miner adoption. Full node adoption is even slower.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontrover=
sial hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">For a controversial one, not at all.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>

--047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda--