Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 馃搮 Original date posted:2015-09-21 馃摑 Original message:Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at ...
馃搮 Original date posted:2015-09-21
馃摑 Original message:Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc> writes:
> On Sep 20, 2015 10:58 PM, "Rusty Russell" <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Jorge Tim贸n <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.
>
> The initial thread is linked to from the BIP document (which is in the
> bitcoin/bips PR).
Thanks, read and digested.
The good news is that timeout via GetMedianTimePast() doesn't have any
effect on "should I accept this to mempool", and seems pretty
uncontroversial. Activation is by block number once vote hits 95%, so
that too is fairly simple to implement.
Cheers,
Rusty.
馃摑 Original message:Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc> writes:
> On Sep 20, 2015 10:58 PM, "Rusty Russell" <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Jorge Tim贸n <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.
>
> The initial thread is linked to from the BIP document (which is in the
> bitcoin/bips PR).
Thanks, read and digested.
The good news is that timeout via GetMedianTimePast() doesn't have any
effect on "should I accept this to mempool", and seems pretty
uncontroversial. Activation is by block number once vote hits 95%, so
that too is fairly simple to implement.
Cheers,
Rusty.