Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E6EA7F for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:54:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com (mail-la0-f49.google.com [209.85.215.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C92B194 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so82382647lab.1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:54:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6xZ85LZ6vbuyi3uaDVGx92RNU6XcqDNSh5gQZ/4b5qA=; b=KBP3jtZqwp2Jw9yveqev1n0++gXi8/+HsIrfll8VJurqyq6hAdnWyHc7NrOaVBL8Lm RAeBoC1ZNbxcWwLD6Bu2IjX1ipAzZocGp/B6/ZvuhfB7f78zDRNHC0u+b77wDuL/3koQ /SVNY7akg0EMjUg12Ds+/M8b9P9DrcxJtXHZGZnRdcqFYGpc7Lgo1KKU+jsFtpGwUXYT gJpFnk1evDTKClms2AETt3rJlpNBolXKKiBClm8gAvDtPJutwNX19YGiidBIWG2QXopO qBa6FXSsIUHhg+qSvpFyTqvRUhub0UurFk1cNg65qswaxhLl9vXSa8kFQwzCNAY6meK7 6Lzw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWHC9cF6JVtulQGHG8j2YFdlmvhyRIga25TTF9+nWyl5vnrM7ujk4FtItzu8mJiy+xWiuj MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.153.7.66 with SMTP id da2mr1607616lad.117.1439826873193; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:54:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55887EDF.3070505@jrn.me.uk> References: <20150622205420.GA8892@savin.petertodd.org> <55887EDF.3070505@jrn.me.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:54:33 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Ross Nicoll Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase 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, 17 Aug 2015 15:54:36 -0000 On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ross Nicoll wrote: > Potentially daft question, why not use a minimum height? Yes, it's > imprecise, but over an extended period of time they're good enough IMHO. > > I'd have to do more careful calculations to confirm, but block 388,000 > should be about right as a minimum. BIP99 (still a draft too) currently recommends a minimum height plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation (aka "miner voting") after that for uncontroversial hardforks: https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-0099.mediawiki#Uncontroversial_hardforks http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html But general hardfork activation discussion is still inconclusive in http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009731.html The code for the example uncontroversial hardfork proposed in bip99 is at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.11...jtimon:hardfork-timewarp-0.11 But I haven't created a PR for either the code or the bip yet.