Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BF261B3B for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:35:08 +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 C85FDA4 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:35:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 357231401CD; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:35:06 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Jorge =?utf-8?Q?Tim=C3=B3n?= In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87eghwiu4k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <8737y9iw04.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:04:06 +0930 Message-ID: <877fnkysbl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:35:08 -0000 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n writes: > On Sep 20, 2015 10:58 PM, "Rusty Russell" wrote: >> >> Jorge Tim=C3=B3n writes: >> > I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks > will >> > replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in >> > favor of using the height from the start. This is "being discussed" in= a >> > thread branched from bip99's discussion. >> >> Thanks, I'll have to dig through bitcoin-dev and find it. > > The initial thread is linked to from the BIP document (which is in the > bitcoin/bips PR). Thanks, read and digested. The good news is that timeout via GetMedianTimePast() doesn't have any effect on "should I accept this to mempool", and seems pretty uncontroversial. Activation is by block number once vote hits 95%, so that too is fairly simple to implement. Cheers, Rusty.