MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWu7HgHh=8nAZMfJaekL03HHXvHrkRBho=aBAoRtHR9Eg@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>
	<CAE-z3OXbUhsyzd=8hxzFAST9rEQyTg9whn+CMh92S0FMdLH4ug@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDo4f6bpJeobwRyoukKw9t=ApuRtHMYWpWFXjv9=K7aFyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OUyNpmG5uhSCExf39zmmB-b9xDrn+gkp3UFeg7M3G8E5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDphLRQ6huhxvcx1YvbsmaBHA_sk6MEZF+hgdxoC472P+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CDB1F26E-FE26-44F3-9A86-CDAE33A51B8B@gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OWu7HgHh=8nAZMfJaekL03HHXvHrkRBho=aBAoRtHR9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:59:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr=cfXZgA8HUik-8eSS8QgcB1mndJnvNrK8-NcY6yjPYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
	delay.
Precedence: list

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The advantage of enforcing the rule when 75% is reached (but only for blocks
> with the bit set) is that miners get early notification that they have
> implemented the rule incorrectly.    They might produce blocks that they
> think are fine, but which aren't.

I'm still unconvinced, but thanks, this is what I was asking for.