Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks)
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a > hardfork? How so? > The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of the median of the previous 11 blocks. At the moment, you need to be greater than that value. This would add a condition at the other end. It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit. A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to have the same timestamp. This would force the off by 1 and the correct value to give the same result. If that's the case, do you have a better candidate? > I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork, especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks)
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Tier Nolan wrote: > The off by 1 bug could be fixed by a soft fork. Since the point is to show > how a non-controversial hard fork works, it doesn't matter much. You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a hardfork? How so? If that's the case, do you have a better candidate? -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks)
The off by 1 bug could be fixed by a soft fork. Since the point is to show how a non-controversial hard fork works, it doesn't matter much. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
