📅 Original date posted:2017-07-07
📝 Original message:What if you want height based but lockinontimeout = false ?
On 7 Jul 2017 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated
> the BIP text in the following proposals
>
> "lockinontimeout" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 the BIP9
> implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispense with
> it entirely.
>
> So the two changes BIP8 brings is BIP9 modified to use height not time,
> and remove the veto failed state.
>
> Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-
> height
> BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...
> shaolinfry:bip8-height
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
>
> 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.
>
> If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to amend BIP8 to be
> height based. I originally omitted height based thresholds in the interests
> of simplicity of review - but now that the proposal has been widely
> reviewed it would be a trivial amendment.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170707/2b04553e/attachment.html>;
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 18:03:57
in reply to nevent1q…t7x2
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 18:03:57Event JSON
{
"id": "502eaff6d68e857dbe84cb9d0be44260258f75846b3e312a1f8f348498657495",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686161037,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6dca4ce5a4efa74cb7ed37e5b09a18be6e9c403d445123c985869b2153e645a9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b3c71167554e7c2e916be814f2ce56e40bdc76087561ce5577497be0579cf5fc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"512c64351a85e9323c34af13b4dfcf320615bacb09132ae6da9ce671b7942825"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-07\n📝 Original message:What if you want height based but lockinontimeout = false ?\n\nOn 7 Jul 2017 8:09 am, \"shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated\n\u003e the BIP text in the following proposals\n\u003e\n\u003e \"lockinontimeout\" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 the BIP9\n\u003e implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispense with\n\u003e it entirely.\n\u003e\n\u003e So the two changes BIP8 brings is BIP9 modified to use height not time,\n\u003e and remove the veto failed state.\n\u003e\n\u003e Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-\n\u003e height\n\u003e BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...\n\u003e shaolinfry:bip8-height\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e -------- Original Message --------\n\u003e Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds\n\u003e\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\u003e If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to amend BIP8 to be\n\u003e height based. I originally omitted height based thresholds in the interests\n\u003e of simplicity of review - but now that the proposal has been widely\n\u003e reviewed it would be a trivial amendment.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170707/2b04553e/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "2bfdf29046033f7ff0fb6ada6c399c4a95ec972f620807fd35e58e129d0307370873290014d5f9d326a184c582273c88eecdc4bf3e3702d13abf3c784800b762"
}