From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Jorge =?utf-8?Q?Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrLGHHn96JVpUX3kHcW0qx2fieAaYydb5EC_SGh=2hEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAE-z3OWLteNyBWuYSkYLZNteOGjDch_fViOV2kpWCaZkXsbu4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CABm2gDqh=Dv2Ygctg+jEt61N_nJDRBMqdZypSPtmfM2QrY4AYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OXATJ6HGKqU=vxc8k-yCMAMwXiWQJxvO3D_O256_ZODtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDppFsTbh3JtdJkAkV_GzKFYAOLiEmtQPCgS9O6b7eWFuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87eghwiu4k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CABm2gDrLGHHn96JVpUX3kHcW0qx2fieAaYydb5EC_SGh=2hEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:26:43 +0930
Message-ID: <8737y9iw04.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
	delay.
Precedence: list

Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> writes:
> 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.

Thanks, I'll have to dig through bitcoin-dev and find it.

> 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.

BIP text is pretty clear that it's median block time.

This is only for timeout, not for soft fork rule change (which *is* 2016
blocks after 95% is reached).

Cheers,
Rusty.