Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: ๐ Original date posted:2015-09-16 ๐ Original message:On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at ...
๐
Original date posted:2015-09-16
๐ Original message:On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Timรณn <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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150916/530b12d1/attachment.html>
๐ Original message:On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Timรณn <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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150916/530b12d1/attachment.html>