Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-16 📝 Original message:I understand your ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-16
📝 Original message:I understand your proposal, but I don't see what it accomplishes compared
to applying the new rule from the start (in your own blocks) and wait for
95% for consensus activation (which is my preference and it's much simpler
to implement).
What are the disadvantages of my approach? What are the advantages of yours?
On Sep 16, 2015 4:57 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" <
>> bitcoin-dev at 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 consensus
>> rule it is just part of the standard policy (and we shouldn't rely on nodes
>> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150916/8b4bf287/attachment-0001.html>;