Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-02-06 📝 Original message:On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-02-06
📝 Original message:On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Responding to "28 days is not long enough" :
Any thoughts on the "95% better than 75%" and "grace period before miner
coordination instead of after" comments ?
> I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-maintained full
nodes-- probably 30 to 40%. Losing those nodes will not be a problem, for
three reasons:
None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that "being lost"
(kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users.
> I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no cost to a longer
grace period.
I didn't say that.
> To bring it back to bitcoin-dev territory: are there any TECHNICAL
arguments why an upgrade would take a business or individual longer than 28
days?
Their own software stack may require more work to integrate the new rules
or their resources may not be immediately available to focus on this within
28 days they hadn't planned.
I believe it wold be less controversial to chose something that nobody can
deny is more than plenty of time for everyone to implement the changes
like, say, 1 year. I wouldn't personally oppose to something shorter like 6
months for really simple changes, but I don't see how 28 can ever be
considered uncontroversial and safe for everyone. Just trying to help in
removing controversy from the PR, but if you still think 28 can be safe and
uncontroversial, feel free to ignore these comments on the concrete length
and please let me know what you think about the other points I raised.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160206/567808a2/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Responding to "28 days is not long enough" :
Any thoughts on the "95% better than 75%" and "grace period before miner
coordination instead of after" comments ?
> I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-maintained full
nodes-- probably 30 to 40%. Losing those nodes will not be a problem, for
three reasons:
None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that "being lost"
(kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users.
> I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no cost to a longer
grace period.
I didn't say that.
> To bring it back to bitcoin-dev territory: are there any TECHNICAL
arguments why an upgrade would take a business or individual longer than 28
days?
Their own software stack may require more work to integrate the new rules
or their resources may not be immediately available to focus on this within
28 days they hadn't planned.
I believe it wold be less controversial to chose something that nobody can
deny is more than plenty of time for everyone to implement the changes
like, say, 1 year. I wouldn't personally oppose to something shorter like 6
months for really simple changes, but I don't see how 28 can ever be
considered uncontroversial and safe for everyone. Just trying to help in
removing controversy from the PR, but if you still think 28 can be safe and
uncontroversial, feel free to ignore these comments on the concrete length
and please let me know what you think about the other points I raised.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160206/567808a2/attachment.html>;