📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18
📝 Original message:I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference.
Another option is to use the median time from the previous block (thus you
know whether or not the next block should start the miner confirmation or
not). In fact, if we're going to use bip9 for 95% miner upgrade
confirmation, it would be nice to always pick a difficulty retarget block
(ie block.nHeight % DifficultyAdjustmentInterval == 0).
Actually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks too.
I would also use the sign bit as the "hardfork bit" that gets activated for
the next diff interval after 95% is reached and a hardfork becomes active
(that way even SPV nodes will notice when a softfork or hardfork happens
and also be able to tell which one is it).
I should update bip99 with all this. And if the 2 mb bump is
uncontroversial, maybe I can add that to the timewarp fix and th recovery
of the other 2 bits in block.nVersion (given that bip102 doesn't seem to
follow bip99's recommendations and doesn't want to give 6 full months as
the pre activation grace period).
On Dec 18, 2015 8:17 PM, "Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> In many BIPs we have seen, include the latest BIP202, it is the block
> time that determine the max block size. From from pool's point of
> view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of
> ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown.
> For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a
> function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much
> more simple and elegant than time.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151218/80de6201/attachment-0001.html>;
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 17:46:49
in reply to nevent1q…3rsy
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 17:46:49Event JSON
{
"id": "86b8542ed4552b879886f1b4f617adff68cb30dae8073a954156672f65a711e7",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686160009,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"497fedabcda199dc32dac4427887a8c606ccdbd018602c9bcf98aaa69f427b8a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4516bfb8de105f3b6f2aaf93079d51879346ab52c39e13b6281ac9186956f55c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cb447013f90240d6e2c4941f91d80483153f692eeadd154f370ee96f23235a6b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18\n📝 Original message:I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference.\nAnother option is to use the median time from the previous block (thus you\nknow whether or not the next block should start the miner confirmation or\nnot). In fact, if we're going to use bip9 for 95% miner upgrade\nconfirmation, it would be nice to always pick a difficulty retarget block\n(ie block.nHeight % DifficultyAdjustmentInterval == 0).\nActually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks too.\nI would also use the sign bit as the \"hardfork bit\" that gets activated for\nthe next diff interval after 95% is reached and a hardfork becomes active\n(that way even SPV nodes will notice when a softfork or hardfork happens\nand also be able to tell which one is it).\nI should update bip99 with all this. And if the 2 mb bump is\nuncontroversial, maybe I can add that to the timewarp fix and th recovery\nof the other 2 bits in block.nVersion (given that bip102 doesn't seem to\nfollow bip99's recommendations and doesn't want to give 6 full months as\nthe pre activation grace period).\nOn Dec 18, 2015 8:17 PM, \"Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e In many BIPs we have seen, include the latest BIP202, it is the block\n\u003e time that determine the max block size. From from pool's point of\n\u003e view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of\n\u003e ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown.\n\u003e For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a\n\u003e function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much\n\u003e more simple and elegant than time.\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-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151218/80de6201/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "0d414b9b512baaf4d09b9c2656a1cb26759e7efc9a9bdc9c8fa621462ccb0fac03064fc18e19c9cabf9814714a7ac0d0eac39e7fecb51547ecd6b1e0babf46c7"
}