📅 Original date posted:2015-09-29
📝 Original message:Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> On 9/13/2015 11:56 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> '''Success: Activation Delay'''
>> The consensus rules related to ''locked-in'' soft fork will be enforced in
>> the second retarget period; ie. there is a one retarget period in
>> which the remaining 5% can upgrade. At the that activation block and
>> after, the bit B may be reused for a different soft fork.
>>
>
> Rather than a simple one-period delay, should there be a one-period
> "burn-in" to show sustained support of the threshold? During this
> period, support must continuously remain above the threshold. Any lapse
> resets to inactivated state.
>
> With a simple delay, you can have the embarrassing situation where
> support falls off during the delay period and there is far below
> threshold support just moments prior to enforcement, but enforcement
> happens anyway.
Yeah, but Gavin's right. If you can't account for all the corner cases,
all you can do is keep it simple and well defined.
Thanks,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-07 17:40:10
in reply to nevent1q…dls0
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-07 17:40:10Event JSON
{
"id": "7fc90910409db21354b4f1802360d26701f55bd4ea7fe2ea4575a438d38f91d5",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686159610,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"97970fd647e1ad99b763fefc14ff6c3da92992c59a8d85f2e5fe9ba87f5c9fb9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"69bfaab17245fd92645923d4ca18315f53b41bd5669683447fbb5eff7d8b6e1e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-29\n📝 Original message:Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\nwrites:\n\u003e On 9/13/2015 11:56 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e '''Success: Activation Delay'''\n\u003e\u003e The consensus rules related to ''locked-in'' soft fork will be enforced in\n\u003e\u003e the second retarget period; ie. there is a one retarget period in\n\u003e\u003e which the remaining 5% can upgrade. At the that activation block and\n\u003e\u003e after, the bit B may be reused for a different soft fork.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Rather than a simple one-period delay, should there be a one-period \n\u003e \"burn-in\" to show sustained support of the threshold? During this \n\u003e period, support must continuously remain above the threshold. Any lapse \n\u003e resets to inactivated state.\n\u003e\n\u003e With a simple delay, you can have the embarrassing situation where \n\u003e support falls off during the delay period and there is far below \n\u003e threshold support just moments prior to enforcement, but enforcement \n\u003e happens anyway.\n\nYeah, but Gavin's right. If you can't account for all the corner cases,\nall you can do is keep it simple and well defined.\n\nThanks,\nRusty.",
"sig": "500ea2d4265e10dd7fb6179dece98974508f8fc154d1ec9e11f5da3ec81ba9ada5eecaacf25fe4282f751d27c4a23e0dccda217f768585e0eae72aa6b65c47ce"
}