Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20 📝 Original message:Jorge Timón <jtimon at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:Jorge Timón <jtimon at 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.
📝 Original message:Jorge Timón <jtimon at 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.