š
Original date posted:2016-10-16
š Original message:On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to
> be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken
> into account the way it would.
Can you please explain how having a longer grace period makes it any
safer? Once the fork reaches the LOCKED_IN status, the fork will become
active after the period is over. How does having a longer grace period
make this any safer besides just adding more waiting before it goes
active? You said something about rolling back the changes. There is no
mechanism for roll backs, and the whole point of the soft fork
signalling is such that there is no need to roll back anything because
miners have signaled that they are supporting the fork.
Andrew C [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vcā¦xz0wk
2023-06-07 17:54:05
in reply to nevent1qā¦d7dk
Author Public Key
npub1vceyhqxfhemlfq82ztdv9gqgc08zq2680yzy4dfuly7h8pqrkwps0xz0wkPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:05Event JSON
{
"id": "c4cdd6f536140abb016d0329dca3b641ca99a5b2710947621e4f4f357e74034a",
"pubkey": "66324b80c9be77f480ea12dac2a008c3ce202b4779044ab53cf93d738403b383",
"created_at": 1686160445,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"013851964e0006d489daca620e14c7c6c63358b79bff34620f9703c31bcdc761",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ba5f9c0db973f4ea8b3ce557874d3ad2d9f4d2df86b0dd074187e7391e92fb07",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"32c1d9c27dfd0e394e66612d9d585c61a027adc8ad69aeb89a4a5f455080448c"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-10-16\nš Original message:On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to \n\u003e be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken \n\u003e into account the way it would.\n\nCan you please explain how having a longer grace period makes it any\nsafer? Once the fork reaches the LOCKED_IN status, the fork will become\nactive after the period is over. How does having a longer grace period\nmake this any safer besides just adding more waiting before it goes\nactive? You said something about rolling back the changes. There is no\nmechanism for roll backs, and the whole point of the soft fork\nsignalling is such that there is no need to roll back anything because\nminers have signaled that they are supporting the fork.",
"sig": "2fd5c2c7b509ca7134f86b520435b8e2233c3b28abb93a32d0c92040f8cd866e78212058d25c43f828b3b66eab48973faf8f6a35fdfd5a89a15fd7552e1b5333"
}