📅 Original date posted:2015-09-23
📝 Original message:On 9/13/2015 11:56 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> '''Success: Activation Delay'''
> The consensus rules related to ''locked-in'' soft fork will be enforced in
> the second retarget period; ie. there is a one retarget period in
> which the remaining 5% can upgrade. At the that activation block and
> after, the bit B may be reused for a different soft fork.
>
Rather than a simple one-period delay, should there be a one-period
"burn-in" to show sustained support of the threshold? During this
period, support must continuously remain above the threshold. Any lapse
resets to inactivated state.
With a simple delay, you can have the embarrassing situation where
support falls off during the delay period and there is far below
threshold support just moments prior to enforcement, but enforcement
happens anyway.
BIP 101 has this problem too.
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 17:40:10
in reply to nevent1q…wr5s
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 17:40:10Event JSON
{
"id": "c6ab4eb071ebeda2d6a3547efdd857f743d362f91cc6bac86b060f1fdb0196ba",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686159610,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"97970fd647e1ad99b763fefc14ff6c3da92992c59a8d85f2e5fe9ba87f5c9fb9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"46767ade95f46b25ceaf4b9e33637de6720741c0a3aca54b0711d6ab917f4579",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-23\n📝 Original message:On 9/13/2015 11:56 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e '''Success: Activation Delay'''\n\u003e The consensus rules related to ''locked-in'' soft fork will be enforced in\n\u003e the second retarget period; ie. there is a one retarget period in\n\u003e which the remaining 5% can upgrade. At the that activation block and\n\u003e after, the bit B may be reused for a different soft fork.\n\u003e\n\nRather than a simple one-period delay, should there be a one-period \n\"burn-in\" to show sustained support of the threshold? During this \nperiod, support must continuously remain above the threshold. Any lapse \nresets to inactivated state.\n\nWith a simple delay, you can have the embarrassing situation where \nsupport falls off during the delay period and there is far below \nthreshold support just moments prior to enforcement, but enforcement \nhappens anyway.\n\nBIP 101 has this problem too.",
"sig": "3906363929e560c2f87fcf00511ca8feffd2a0923ee331ed28b075dfd7cd29b1cce58346fb0d67458db5f177dcf7e4af78b1712797b260cc44b74d7de5603311"
}