📅 Original date posted:2017-07-05
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they
> are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable
> to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay
> activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second
> you would never meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty
> of hiking the difficulty dramatically).
>
> On the other hand, the exact date of a height based thresholds is hard to
> predict a long time in advance due to difficulty fluctuations. However,
> there is certainty at a given block height and it's easy to monitor.
>
You could get most of the best of both with a combination of the two: Have
the activation be a timestamp plus a certain number of blocks to come after
maybe about 100, which is more than enough to make sure all the games which
can be played with timestamps have passed but a small enough amount that it
doesn't add much uncertainty to wall clock time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170704/029eec8d/attachment.html>;
Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ld…t8ur6
2023-06-07 18:03:55
in reply to nevent1q…xmnn
Author Public Key
npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6Published at
2023-06-07 18:03:55Event JSON
{
"id": "5fbbdf6431b7dc5e89f4a3b407be0879f84b7b395548f1e3d19cf84061236215",
"pubkey": "fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9",
"created_at": 1686161035,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6dca4ce5a4efa74cb7ed37e5b09a18be6e9c403d445123c985869b2153e645a9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b1019f2302cf87404a3534c7740b483c7132ca59d607e3fc09cb3306589b612e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-05\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they\n\u003e are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable\n\u003e to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay\n\u003e activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second\n\u003e you would never meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty\n\u003e of hiking the difficulty dramatically).\n\u003e\n\u003e On the other hand, the exact date of a height based thresholds is hard to\n\u003e predict a long time in advance due to difficulty fluctuations. However,\n\u003e there is certainty at a given block height and it's easy to monitor.\n\u003e\n\nYou could get most of the best of both with a combination of the two: Have\nthe activation be a timestamp plus a certain number of blocks to come after\nmaybe about 100, which is more than enough to make sure all the games which\ncan be played with timestamps have passed but a small enough amount that it\ndoesn't add much uncertainty to wall clock time.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170704/029eec8d/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "6e960720a3dc6605bf352d5ff46f4834a9e8bcfcf2f9730383a895c4aa10d1feedfcae945668d2ec143a2b4c0da389a99b43473947b21abcccfb9c17e89c0fdc"
}