Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AD9E1396
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:32:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com (mail-vk0-f48.google.com
	[209.85.213.48])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D63B5176
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:32:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vkgd64 with SMTP id d64so109472418vkg.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
	:content-type; bh=+zl2h/3rb6H7muisH9VCvEZqCj7XcxG9+XxuoA+28l0=;
	b=OrxkG91QPA7uOkN0JO0fc7MqewrJrqViMMGEOOJTjryly4Dz4Ea01/T3Ri+En8Mp/b
	RLlqdb5AD0aPan2QVlzqmuwIKS2qoMk/DEb1yll7Vnm2e+cuEva0DiXsi0dggtyOCg/k
	yZ8nZgZkQDYTpXX/AzP9I0v9gvBlkq+Lb0y3HoL43W9NlNYd+C0zpkO3t14h2VgRtNGW
	PDSimKe7XzfRJy750UIgcWFlk5VzD4MQ96Onh8VnY/Cf/fUvQUHU9Rq2T/DagJbQemz+
	98qtUP3urfYuD6JPWM/7mJ5VwiSStsuzZRCTvBzleeUvfKzxlKgV3FIerABKEo4p74qM
	MFNA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.166.206 with SMTP id p197mr6863716vke.52.1442435536228;
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqh=Dv2Ygctg+jEt61N_nJDRBMqdZypSPtmfM2QrY4AYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAE-z3OWLteNyBWuYSkYLZNteOGjDch_fViOV2kpWCaZkXsbu4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CABm2gDqh=Dv2Ygctg+jEt61N_nJDRBMqdZypSPtmfM2QrY4AYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:32:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OXATJ6HGKqU=vxc8k-yCMAMwXiWQJxvO3D_O256_ZODtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141664cbf9659051fe331cc
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, 
	MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
	delay.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:32:17 -0000

--001a1141664cbf9659051fe331cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

> For enforcing new restrictions on your own blocks (thus at the policy
> level, not consensus) you don't need to wait for 75%. You can do it from
> the start (this way all miners setting the bit will enforce the new
> restrictions.
>
At 75%, you have a pretty solid super-majority.

You can safely reject blocks that have the bit set but are invalid
according to the new rule (as long as everyone who sets the bit does it
too).

--001a1141664cbf9659051fe331cc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">For enf=
orcing new restrictions on your own blocks (thus at the policy level, not c=
onsensus) you don&#39;t need to wait for 75%. You can do it from the start =
(this way all miners setting the bit will enforce the new restrictions.</p>=
</blockquote><div>At 75%, you have a pretty solid super-majority.=C2=A0 <br=
><br>You can safely reject blocks that have the bit set but are invalid acc=
ording to the new rule (as long as everyone who sets the bit does it too).<=
br></div></div></div></div>

--001a1141664cbf9659051fe331cc--