📅 Original date posted:2015-08-03
📝 Original message:I have put it on the github:
https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/master/hardforkbit.mediawiki
I removed the specification of coinbase message to make it simpler.
Instead, it requires that a flag block must not be shared by multiple
hardfork proposals.
I'm not sure whether it is a Standard, Informational, or Process BIP
I'm also thinking whether we should call it "hardfork bit", "hardfork
flag", or with other name.
Michael Ruddy 於 2015-08-02 06:53 寫到:
> I think your "hardfork bit" proposal is clever.
> It addresses the particular valid concern of re-org facing users of a
> fork that a small/near/fluctuating majority, or less, of mining power
> supported.
> While the "economic majority" argument may be enough on its own in
> that case, it still has some aspect of being a hand wave.
> This proposal adds support to those economic actors, which makes it
> easier for them to switch if/when they choose. That is, it provides a
> good fallback mechanism that allows them to make a decision and say,
> "we're doing this".
> Do you have the latest version up on github, or someplace where it
> would be easier to collaborate on the specific text?
jl2012 at xbt.hk [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kc…wjfw4
2023-06-07 17:32:06
in reply to nevent1q…cw6g
Author Public Key
npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4Published at
2023-06-07 17:32:06Event JSON
{
"id": "ba70856bc40a228bb78e13030a41f935345d6470956ce3cafe5d983374983c53",
"pubkey": "b61e2e7ccbf4abd7f49715c62f4ac7a93cbdd5ead0316279c5f5fe9b18dd0aaa",
"created_at": 1686159126,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e273b7f72388c1d7ff9f849ef536e41c122ca02f05e9381ab36180bcb27ad161",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"363fe24c08522ab3d4663115a4c8f8d787855efd7a256dbbb15b277d54370dac",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3b13ba0c54ee795e830f91a69b77d5495cb173de5bc0c93f4ddea05affee0c2f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-03\n📝 Original message:I have put it on the github: \nhttps://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/master/hardforkbit.mediawiki\n\nI removed the specification of coinbase message to make it simpler. \nInstead, it requires that a flag block must not be shared by multiple \nhardfork proposals.\n\nI'm not sure whether it is a Standard, Informational, or Process BIP\n\nI'm also thinking whether we should call it \"hardfork bit\", \"hardfork \nflag\", or with other name.\n\nMichael Ruddy 於 2015-08-02 06:53 寫到:\n\u003e I think your \"hardfork bit\" proposal is clever.\n\u003e It addresses the particular valid concern of re-org facing users of a\n\u003e fork that a small/near/fluctuating majority, or less, of mining power\n\u003e supported.\n\u003e While the \"economic majority\" argument may be enough on its own in\n\u003e that case, it still has some aspect of being a hand wave.\n\u003e This proposal adds support to those economic actors, which makes it\n\u003e easier for them to switch if/when they choose. That is, it provides a\n\u003e good fallback mechanism that allows them to make a decision and say,\n\u003e \"we're doing this\".\n\u003e Do you have the latest version up on github, or someplace where it\n\u003e would be easier to collaborate on the specific text?",
"sig": "b2bcdc912f77c4d1564d25a2edf1cea48879335a1426441fddec35faed95ac82aac05c95b254b638a296f646cf59b3008e0566bfed2fbf96ae3ceb82f5b7f4d3"
}