MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDo4f6bpJeobwRyoukKw9t=ApuRtHMYWpWFXjv9=K7aFyA@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>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:57:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUyNpmG5uhSCExf39zmmB-b9xDrn+gkp3UFeg7M3G8E5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
	delay.
Precedence: list

--001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

>
> On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid
> blocks (under the rule).
>
> You shouldn't rely on that, some may start applying the restrictions in
> their own blocks at 0% and others only at 90%. Until it becomes a consens=
us
> rule it is just part of the standard policy (and we shouldn't rely on nod=
es
> following the standard policy).
>

It would be a consensus rule.  If >75% of the blocks in the last 2016
window have the bit set, then reject all blocks that have the bit set and
fail to meet the rule.

--001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"HOEnZb">=
<div class=3D"h5"><p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, &quot;Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid bl=
ocks (under the rule).</p>
</div></div><p dir=3D"ltr">You shouldn&#39;t rely on that, some may start a=
pplying the restrictions in their own blocks at 0% and others only at 90%. =
Until it becomes a consensus rule it is just part of the standard policy (a=
nd we shouldn&#39;t rely on nodes following the standard policy).<span clas=
s=3D""><br></span></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It would be a consen=
sus rule.=C2=A0 If &gt;75% of the blocks in the last 2016 window have the b=
it set, then reject all blocks that have the bit set and fail to meet the r=
ule.<br></div></div><br></div></div>

--001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c--