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
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 969F115D6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:34:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com
[209.85.220.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40A79290
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:34:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so47535818pac.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=Bc7rDdg/MTMIloUknot5zdElnhCr6jUabqedtGlT88I=;
b=ZRaU/vHjySY3qkXjOhlPyR/Ash5b4xlWS6GFMakBjnlf97roipC7l5tVCekEfXYk/T
pKtVJwWGZGiQuvkd1ciskvrQy0gLe9oOZiCGmLbH9GwB2SGOHJQUJripRZ8ac1Ox70Sb
l9SHcOlGm4coJNRQzJkMeI9aOfL8v23kHaW+QZUFnBpiffbU2MUT9JvKh34OAuoDRMRC
3NGaF55o3Q6IaQc4Ih6s6jdBSBej43f0tvnEErPkxbKLyDhukzXGDNcx78E+u8p1axgh
CLiHMvx+45/v0WCPWVzGE/XY8Sb/fGY3um7kTMmFadCuhWdy2g3De21ivJbNTnxDlb9X
yk0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUfJXC4R3RcVqhVQgK+/OtWelWIXfL4V/2Ov6qSIKTLhVcuD4yKZhXpZBCP7V8FL7euSK9
X-Received: by 10.66.155.9 with SMTP id vs9mr38538148pab.63.1443033270002;
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
df2sm9283060pad.19.2015.09.23.11.34.28
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 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, 23 Sep 2015 18:34:30 -0000
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.
|
