📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:Jorge Timón <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.
> Anyway, is this proposing to use the block time or the median block time?
> For some hardforks/softforks the block time complicates the implementation
> (ie in acceptToMemoryPool) as discussed in the mentioned thread.
BIP text is pretty clear that it's median block time.
This is only for timeout, not for soft fork rule change (which *is* 2016
blocks after 95% is reached).
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-07 17:40:09
in reply to nevent1q…5z7f
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-07 17:40:09Event JSON
{
"id": "5d3eed47f0e80f1a71da285d168586dd76fb89f17a7ab65c36c23dce4f9cc5aa",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686159609,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"97970fd647e1ad99b763fefc14ff6c3da92992c59a8d85f2e5fe9ba87f5c9fb9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"56bb00669814cfb9d607afe812e5f0b935c84055a493f9e1d2f08c02d67f6c97",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20\n📝 Original message:Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e writes:\n\u003e I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks will\n\u003e replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in\n\u003e favor of using the height from the start. This is \"being discussed\" in a\n\u003e thread branched from bip99's discussion.\n\nThanks, I'll have to dig through bitcoin-dev and find it.\n\n\u003e Anyway, is this proposing to use the block time or the median block time?\n\u003e For some hardforks/softforks the block time complicates the implementation\n\u003e (ie in acceptToMemoryPool) as discussed in the mentioned thread.\n\nBIP text is pretty clear that it's median block time.\n\nThis is only for timeout, not for soft fork rule change (which *is* 2016\nblocks after 95% is reached).\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "704278dcb37e9274292738856f1cb24956c55741c1d1470cb9137326b1c4f7caa3ad58adce815e7efd082ad981bf96111eb500dfe7ef74fd305095721a95f075"
}