Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

e the veto failed state. > > Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8- > height > BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master... > shaolinfry:bip8-height > > > ---- Original Message > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs bl

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

--- > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds > Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they > are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable to > miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could preve

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

On Wednesday 05 July 2017 8:06:33 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > These proposals for gratuitous orphaning are reckless and coersive. > We have a professional obligation to first do no harm, and amplifying > orphaning which can otherwise easily be avoided violates it. Nothing is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

Just as an implementation consideration, time basis creates complexity. There are no other reasons to index by time, but many to index by height. The time-based activation window of BIP9 forces nodes to either index by time or scan the chain. e > On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Jorge Timón via

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

I'm all for using height instead of time. That was my preference for bip9 all along, but my arguments at the time apparently weren't convincing. Regarding luke's proposal, the only advantage I see is that it would allow nodes that don't know a deployment that gets activated to issue a warning,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

>From the PR change: > Miners must continue setting the bit in LOCKED_IN phase so uptake is visible and acknowledged. Blocks without the applicable bit set are invalid during this period Luke, it seems like the amendments to BIP8 make it drastically different to how it first was designed to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

optional by default with a deferred mechanism to make it mandatory? If so, is there any thought on how to realize the latter without the former? Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. > Original Message ---- > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs b

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I've already opened a PR almost 2 weeks ago to do this and fix the other > issues BIP 9 has. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/550 > > It just needs your ACK to merge. These proposals

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

Luke, I previously explored an extra state to require signalling before activation in an earlier draft of BIP8, but the overall impression I got was that gratuitous orphaning was undesirable, so I dropped it. I understand the motivation behind it (to ensure miners are upgraded), but it's also

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

It's not pointless: it's a wake-up call for miners asleep "at the wheel", to ensure they upgrade in time. Not having a mandatory signal turned out to be a serious bug in BIP 9, and one which is fixed in BIP 148 (and remains a problem for BIP 149 as-is). Additionally, it makes the activation

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

I've already opened a PR almost 2 weeks ago to do this and fix the other issues BIP 9 has. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/550 It just needs your ACK to merge. On Wednesday 05 July 2017 1:30:26 AM shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they > are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable > to miners fiddling with timestamps

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:30:26PM -0400, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they > are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable to > miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or

[bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second