To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <5602F075.4000102@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:33:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
	delay.
Precedence: list

On 9/13/2015 11:56 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> '''Success: Activation Delay'''
> The consensus rules related to ''locked-in'' soft fork will be enforced in
> the second retarget period; ie. there is a one retarget period in
> which the remaining 5% can upgrade.  At the that activation block and
> after, the bit B may be reused for a different soft fork.
>

Rather than a simple one-period delay, should there be a one-period 
"burn-in" to show sustained support of the threshold?  During this 
period, support must continuously remain above the threshold.  Any lapse 
resets to inactivated state.

With a simple delay, you can have the embarrassing situation where 
support falls off during the delay period and there is far below 
threshold support just moments prior to enforcement, but enforcement 
happens anyway.

BIP 101 has this problem too.