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
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
|
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 F06A51470
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:57:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com
[209.85.213.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69F8DA9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:57:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so109419892vkf.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:57:42 -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=L4wvmiuIsalHL1+jiQhh5BLfIZK6mWVV5sM6oH+wtjk=;
b=CwXQXRt0TrJXpiaPVMaz6I4vkqSaMqhWWVPGtQxdOoq77bMXnK5sfrl9fiAThyMP3+
mXblZPRhEXGKAAnY9L0enZrm4ZUgrAgxZXQjqVg022fJUnHxofzp2dIBuh2NqSNf0+87
7y+H+BovPKVuQSS95zQ7Brro3OAeGmdl1FU9Ji5g/619hafuw5mWHpgR66uz8pXSxXZW
CG0YzH5CUPT340zKU+oXOJAncgEDUZJ4a8RUs+VXt4xTSkdSIjQMqyMCfawq1LRmVQIC
uph6gLRoCEEqCEf21Z+nnaqU24UOpqYWZ467hhDKmuNRGNvZSsyBy72F5meKcmAixcND
S4pw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.107.213 with SMTP id k82mr31671287vki.5.1442437062702;
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDo4f6bpJeobwRyoukKw9t=ApuRtHMYWpWFXjv9=K7aFyA@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>
<CAE-z3OXbUhsyzd=8hxzFAST9rEQyTg9whn+CMh92S0FMdLH4ug@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDo4f6bpJeobwRyoukKw9t=ApuRtHMYWpWFXjv9=K7aFyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:57:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUyNpmG5uhSCExf39zmmB-b9xDrn+gkp3UFeg7M3G8E5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c
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 20:57:44 -0000
--001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid
> blocks (under the rule).
>
> You shouldn't rely on that, some may start applying the restrictions in
> their own blocks at 0% and others only at 90%. Until it becomes a consens=
us
> rule it is just part of the standard policy (and we shouldn't rely on nod=
es
> following the standard policy).
>
It would be a consensus rule. If >75% of the blocks in the last 2016
window have the bit set, then reject all blocks that have the bit set and
fail to meet the rule.
--001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c
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 9:54 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
;<a href=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>=
></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"HOEnZb">=
<div class=3D"h5"><p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid bl=
ocks (under the rule).</p>
</div></div><p dir=3D"ltr">You shouldn't rely on that, some may start a=
pplying the restrictions in their own blocks at 0% and others only at 90%. =
Until it becomes a consensus rule it is just part of the standard policy (a=
nd we shouldn't rely on nodes following the standard policy).<span clas=
s=3D""><br></span></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It would be a consen=
sus rule.=C2=A0 If >75% of the blocks in the last 2016 window have the b=
it set, then reject all blocks that have the bit set and fail to meet the r=
ule.<br></div></div><br></div></div>
--001a114786f0bbc040051fe38c0c--
|
