š
Original date posted:2017-07-07
š Original message: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170707/0ab0e517/attachment-0001.html>;
shaolinfry [ARCHIVE] /
npub12yā¦vwd8g
2023-06-07 18:03:57
in reply to nevent1qā¦6a38
Author Public Key
npub12ykxgdg6sh5ny0p54ufmfh70xgrptwktpyfj4ek6nnn8rdu59qjscvwd8gPublished at
2023-06-07 18:03:57Event JSON
{
"id": "b3c71167554e7c2e916be814f2ce56e40bdc76087561ce5577497be0579cf5fc",
"pubkey": "512c64351a85e9323c34af13b4dfcf320615bacb09132ae6da9ce671b7942825",
"created_at": 1686161037,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6dca4ce5a4efa74cb7ed37e5b09a18be6e9c403d445123c985869b2153e645a9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2ae16a373fc4638425a91301b9832ce6cc0b1c1e2c6a8806f676916aacdff13c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2017-07-07\nš Original message:I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated the BIP text in the following proposals\n\n\"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.\nSo the two changes BIP8 brings is BIP9 modified to use height not time, and remove the veto failed state.\nCode: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-height\nBIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-height\n\n\u003e -------- Original Message --------\n\u003e Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds\n\u003e 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).\n\u003e 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.\n\u003e 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.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170707/0ab0e517/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "d5e72866b303f6aeeed87ba59bbf57a761a64d37d77ba91e62128a4b6b1e2e69e4e31f9c3e142e48feeb53dfe63bb75f7cef67487b3ae6ca58114e076b17ccc3"
}