Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA74AE6C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:48:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com
	[209.85.213.46])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7505B31
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:48:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vkao3 with SMTP id o3so97318175vka.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
	:content-type; bh=Cla99vGBRE9cmopOu3HNCRiaqKXvthPuCJoLHGtza8o=;
	b=OdjizcoIWsnbRgMgz9ZNWXhN/th+efv/PBMk8hpC2l0s6YPUOSc6kTw/80JyoEbPd0
	E1po2ATB6poc/I3Cu0oSNPsYKUdzimUDmxTvA0ehoOOWdphZMjQOS9Sk+i8gIeJVcFAN
	SQ2aSNiKV+uJCEx0DGwoDyKRZdTyBnGPg7vOPyNTVNGDjr5A/sZE3EiC2ivSH6i5i8Ff
	BQ30xHoNLiIgIgoUDgRKhFuC7I4AsXWLL1o0+/4J2cImebx0K/jsGXKUQdov8ZWaULZk
	/eaBIaB5XwE8UbY9oCNbCHxJL8ifpdzOsxj2fZWRp3CFn6SPX6Q5exP4D5oRHOxH02bL
	X2Zg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.7.1 with SMTP id 1mr20261192vkh.10.1442436537828; Wed, 16
	Sep 2015 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDppFsTbh3JtdJkAkV_GzKFYAOLiEmtQPCgS9O6b7eWFuw@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>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:48:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OXbUhsyzd=8hxzFAST9rEQyTg9whn+CMh92S0FMdLH4ug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
	URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: *
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, 16 Sep 2015 20:48:59 -0000

--001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

> No, 95% is safer and will produce less orphaned blocks.
>
The point of the 75% is just as a test run.  Enforcement wouldn't happen
until 95%.

At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid blocks
(under the rule).

--001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22
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 9:38 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"><p dir=3D"ltr">No, 95%=
 is safer and will produce less orphaned blocks.<br></p></blockquote><div>T=
he point of the 75% is just as a test run.=C2=A0 Enforcement wouldn&#39;t h=
appen until 95%.<br><br></div><div>At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then th=
ey should be creating valid blocks (under the rule).<br></div></div></div><=
/div>

--001a1143d5e472caa4051fe36d22--