Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> writes: > I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks will > replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in > favor of using the height from the start. This is "being discussed" in a > thread branched from bip99's discussion.
Thanks, I'll have to dig through bitcoin-dev and find it. > Anyway, is this proposing to use the block time or the median block time? > For some hardforks/softforks the block time complicates the implementation > (ie in acceptToMemoryPool) as discussed in the mentioned thread. BIP text is pretty clear that it's median block time. This is only for timeout, not for soft fork rule change (which *is* 2016 blocks after 95% is reached). Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
