📅 Original date posted:2015-09-23
📝 Original message:I say keep it simple.
If the 75% threshold is hit, then support suddenly drops off below 50%,
"meh" -- there will be a big ruckus, everybody will freak out, and miners
will refuse to build big blocks because they'll worry that they'll get
orphaned.
Adding more complexity for a case that ain't gonna happen (and isn't a
disaster if it does) is a mistake, in my humble opinion.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150923/c8d94f63/attachment.html>;
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4…d44kw
2023-06-07 17:40:10
in reply to nevent1q…muah
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 17:40:10Event JSON
{
"id": "69bfaab17245fd92645923d4ca18315f53b41bd5669683447fbb5eff7d8b6e1e",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686159610,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"97970fd647e1ad99b763fefc14ff6c3da92992c59a8d85f2e5fe9ba87f5c9fb9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c6ab4eb071ebeda2d6a3547efdd857f743d362f91cc6bac86b060f1fdb0196ba",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-23\n📝 Original message:I say keep it simple.\n\nIf the 75% threshold is hit, then support suddenly drops off below 50%,\n\"meh\" -- there will be a big ruckus, everybody will freak out, and miners\nwill refuse to build big blocks because they'll worry that they'll get\norphaned.\n\nAdding more complexity for a case that ain't gonna happen (and isn't a\ndisaster if it does) is a mistake, in my humble opinion.\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 9/13/2015 11:56 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e '''Success: Activation Delay'''\n\u003e\u003e The consensus rules related to ''locked-in'' soft fork will be enforced in\n\u003e\u003e the second retarget period; ie. there is a one retarget period in\n\u003e\u003e which the remaining 5% can upgrade. At the that activation block and\n\u003e\u003e after, the bit B may be reused for a different soft fork.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e Rather than a simple one-period delay, should there be a one-period\n\u003e \"burn-in\" to show sustained support of the threshold? During this period,\n\u003e support must continuously remain above the threshold. Any lapse resets to\n\u003e inactivated state.\n\u003e\n\u003e With a simple delay, you can have the embarrassing situation where support\n\u003e falls off during the delay period and there is far below threshold support\n\u003e just moments prior to enforcement, but enforcement happens anyway.\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP 101 has this problem too.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\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\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150923/c8d94f63/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c78f62b679c93245fa0e220330ac779a32a9d8f4864edc554df284c527675bd2e678bef065c4cb2f7af575fbb93609c3ef5c8d84e45a2990778e6c4a76752764"
}