Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-02-04 📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2016-02-04
📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:56 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> No, the "triggering block" you mentioned is NOT where the hardfork starts.
> Using BIP101 as an example, the hardfork starts when the first >1MB is
> mined. For people who failed to upgrade, the "grace period" is always zero,
> which is the moment they realize a hardfork.


Clients have to update in some way to get the benefit of this right?

An SPV client which fully validated the header chain would simply reject
the hard forking header. Last time I checked, the Bitcoinj SPV wallet
ignored the version bits, and just followed the longest chain. Is that
still the case?

In fact, does Core enforce the 95% rule for the soft-forks before checking
for long forks? I am assuming that it happens when checking headers rather
than when checking full blocks.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email>; This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>;
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160204/d79be3a8/attachment.html>;