jl2012 at xbt.hk [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-02 📝 Original message:Currently, a tx maybe ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-11-02
📝 Original message:Currently, a tx maybe included in a block only if its locktime (x) is
smaller than the timestamp of a block (y)

BIP113 says that a tx maybe included in a block only if x is smaller
than the median-time-past (z)

It is already a consensus rule that y > z. Therefore, if x < z, x < y

The new rule is absolutely stricter than the old rule, so it is a
softfork. Anything wrong with my interpretation?

Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-11-01 14:06 寫到:
> BIP 113 makes things valid which currently are not (any transaction
> with a
> locktime between the median time past, and the block nTime). Therefore
> it is a
> hardfork. Yet the current BIP describes and deploys it as a softfork.
>
> Furthermore, Bitcoin Core one week ago merged #6566 adding BIP 113
> logic to
> the mempool and block creation. This will probably produce invalid
> blocks
> (which CNB's safety TestBlockValidity call should catch), and should be
> reverted until an appropriate solution is determined.
>
> Rusty suggested something like adding N hours to the median time past
> for
> comparison, and to be a proper hardfork, this must be max()'d with the
> block
> nTime. On the other hand, if we will have a hardfork in the next year
> or so,
> it may be best to just hold off and deploy as part of that.
>
> Further thoughts/input?
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev