MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 23:27:50 -0500
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201511011906.44081.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201511011906.44081.luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <67789addeb5a0e702998f26cc16a8dbd@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 113: Median time-past is a HARDfork,
 not a softfork!
Precedence: list

Currently, a tx maybe included in a block only if its locktime (x) is 
smaller than the timestamp of a block (y)

BIP113 says that a tx maybe included in a block only if x is smaller 
than the median-time-past (z)

It is already a consensus rule that y > z. Therefore, if x < z, x < y

The new rule is absolutely stricter than the old rule, so it is a 
softfork. Anything wrong with my interpretation?

Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-11-01 14:06 寫到:
> BIP 113 makes things valid which currently are not (any transaction 
> with a
> locktime between the median time past, and the block nTime). Therefore 
> it is a
> hardfork. Yet the current BIP describes and deploys it as a softfork.
> 
> Furthermore, Bitcoin Core one week ago merged #6566 adding BIP 113 
> logic to
> the mempool and block creation. This will probably produce invalid 
> blocks
> (which CNB's safety TestBlockValidity call should catch), and should be
> reverted until an appropriate solution is determined.
> 
> Rusty suggested something like adding N hours to the median time past 
> for
> comparison, and to be a proper hardfork, this must be max()'d with the 
> block
> nTime. On the other hand, if we will have a hardfork in the next year 
> or so,
> it may be best to just hold off and deploy as part of that.
> 
> Further thoughts/input?
> 
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev