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
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00D9D14F2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:42 +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 BD69E1B2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id DE14E1409B7; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:24:36 +1000 (AEST)
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:24:42 -0000
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.
|
