MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OVgQFaFAWUJhDLzyMAE2AXoGHTy0NbUADDAZW9-veX8XA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDqPBPiDG1BUAipEsLfyE1VFyvdqdoxtYjkKvGDvBQ8qMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OVM8vwjo_-FOggSoOWR78w=Rmm+GS7Xv9uSK0jdx1_zdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDrs6XwG5imH3pFFDB71kx2dSfhR7kjc6Pw8hvDKqGvTPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OVgQFaFAWUJhDLzyMAE2AXoGHTy0NbUADDAZW9-veX8XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:10:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrrqubbZ7MjDppu-eFxJGcydVoSAK2SC=-s-0txYX6GRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and
 deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks)
Precedence: list

Discussions about whether to get miner's confirmation on
uncontroversial hardforks or not, and about whether to use nHeight,
nMedianTime or just use nTime are spreading all around. Hopefully
getting a BIP number (even though this is still a draft) will help
concentrating discussions about deployment of uncontroversial
hardforks to a single place.
Greg, can I get a BIP number for this?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wro=
te:
>>
>> You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a
>> hardfork? How so?
>
>
> The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of
> the median of the previous 11 blocks.  At the moment, you need to be grea=
ter
> than that value.  This would add a condition at the other end.
>
> It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit.
>
> A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to hav=
e
> the same timestamp.  This would force the off by 1 and the correct value =
to
> give the same result.
>
>> If that's the case, do you have a better candidate?
>
>
> I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork,
> especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>