1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 678DB1EA1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:30:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91EB138
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:30:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id BC1D0140180; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:30:39 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
In-Reply-To: <5602F075.4000102@thinlink.com>
References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <5602F075.4000102@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:35:47 +0930
Message-ID: <8737xwhdac.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
delay.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:30:44 -0000
Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> 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.
Yeah, but Gavin's right. If you can't account for all the corner cases,
all you can do is keep it simple and well defined.
Thanks,
Rusty.
|
