From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OW6BKHfx=wS9AYqb4+Ems6xM+SDqBKgGbNkXfPwuPqn8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAE-z3OWLteNyBWuYSkYLZNteOGjDch_fViOV2kpWCaZkXsbu4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAE-z3OW6BKHfx=wS9AYqb4+Ems6xM+SDqBKgGbNkXfPwuPqn8A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:49:05 +0930
Message-ID: <878u84ikxi.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
	delay.
Precedence: list

Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> wrote:
>> You need a timeout: an ancient (non-mining, thus undetectable) node
>> should never fork itself off the network because someone reused a failed
>> BIP bit.
>>
>
> I meant if the 2nd bit was part of the BIP.  One of the 2 bits is "FOR" and
> the other is "AGAINST".  If against hits 25%, then it is deemed a failure.
>
> The 2nd bit wouldn't be used normally.  This means that proposals can be
> killed quickly if they are obviously going to fail.

This could be added if we approach one failed soft fork every 5 weeks,
I guess (or it could be just for specific soft forks).

Cheers,
Rusty.