1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EDC98D4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f169.google.com (mail-ua0-f169.google.com
[209.85.217.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9B2E151
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:51:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z22so16988744uah.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Jul 2017 02:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=ncsBMUf15H1zztwPkEB70Ydm1FEmTQurTp03+s1UNWc=;
b=eMwxuM/IrnF6Lo8yAy6yUFkBGJEJfNXH2pEtuxmqeujLqqdUbO2KF0IkZ5Hm13XQ8d
QBlY/6Tz1MuSeJuDxIDeXowAkXLG4qe7LDzWcM5+A+bxhd0ISKTcv76jJYPjPWMHZmPj
pK8rH2FjOxDvvfkCLPUIeziByoQuzyKkfkXWMoei0mhjDrndvJY9IQHoSYKjYWNXPh/Q
tTqb3IPHj8t/VAaSPJEeCI91F+he0Ykq497AC9w9VYV8R4noXqeoO9rhjCLmLb1f6rgy
bpS/l9/IzAxzQigzm5I6b0VMoV40vndMHK3jjAgvpQ+Al5gG8E/5aJeUeomU5o5YE+Ed
WjjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=ncsBMUf15H1zztwPkEB70Ydm1FEmTQurTp03+s1UNWc=;
b=lopTsH3GF1nBSHBWJiLoXc4ZzJJU9L8IWvGyn1NnhsILGMEiRDQTE6/hPTAXV5seQD
dDDTMnuyABIi2K+pO3I6XLVHfiLN/5TdNXYIMmC+0A60PO7CE6snh5O9xE+vpBVnerTV
AgqpZkrxGBRdrjR3ESDJPy5fNB2lkk8X3JT17OKMUosL3WvdGOxIJ8d6vEZQpeD0ah6E
AdeNb33m2IIImFH2ow6ijt+upgjYXrkSC3hIB9UG8C4ANRcvGF3b8Pcxg+Pg+PjI/PFh
XJrtysQKnhnPpRv3P6mTScKKE0TLEcqKeEjE8eEQeZxxBoqWu88Xy7mtIDkH2yQMoWni
aTDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113JbvPNJA3vqVW9Uvh7KzNDAvgUXZE1WtZulsXWY6AMwyGzv3Fn
g1a5McFxUXRugNnS1rXYboBtTyZglnBq
X-Received: by 10.176.94.131 with SMTP id y3mr193998uag.21.1499421077743; Fri,
07 Jul 2017 02:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.52.85 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.52.85 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <q2ezd-tOTBF_3zLOedB36jYCuszrKYS-9BHS_Unle1NipWFTWX-aDwsfy5XrAB2D02SwojA4C_vDIyZa-VEh9IlQalF27HYG5C5KAP9096o=@protonmail.ch>
References: <KXL-Ie0q1dKTlbQ2XCyTRCzoQLND-Q7M9CFvYTfhjgeiZ4K3knpetQSwwLviO6whuHXQnFPg-rg8q1xW8w5mNnYFxalvx5_9Vci63lC9ju4=@protonmail.ch>
<q2ezd-tOTBF_3zLOedB36jYCuszrKYS-9BHS_Unle1NipWFTWX-aDwsfy5XrAB2D02SwojA4C_vDIyZa-VEh9IlQalF27HYG5C5KAP9096o=@protonmail.ch>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 11:51:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqBE-sxB3j6WK9kW8Zp9GkEG1b3q=_iqJS+XkGzv7EXDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:51:19 -0000
--f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
What if you want height based but lockinontimeout = false ?
On 7 Jul 2017 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">What if you want height based but=C2=A0<span style=3D"fon=
t-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">lockinontimeout =3D false ?</span><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 7 Jul 201=
7 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</=
a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>I=
have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated th=
e BIP text in the following proposals<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>&qu=
ot;lockinontimeout" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 th=
e BIP9 implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispens=
e with it entirely.<br></div><div><br></div><div>So the two changes BIP8 br=
ings is BIP9 modified to use height not time, and remove the veto failed st=
ate.<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>Code:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://=
github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-height" target=
=3D"_blank">https://github.com/<wbr>bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/<wbr>master...s=
haolinfry:bip8-<wbr>height</a><br></div></div><div>BIP:=C2=A0<a href=3D"htt=
ps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip8-height" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://github.com/<wbr>bitcoin/bips/compare/master...<wbr>sha=
olinfry:bip8-height</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote =
class=3D"m_4220148740660768475protonmail_quote" type=3D"cite"><div>--------=
Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Height base=
d vs block time based thresholds<br></div><div><br></div><div>Some people h=
ave criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they are confu=
sing (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 nev=
er meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty of hiking the=
difficulty dramatically).<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><=
div>If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to amend BIP8 to be h=
eight based. I originally omitted height based thresholds in the interests =
of simplicity of review - but now that the proposal has been widely reviewe=
d it would be a trivial amendment.<br></div><div class=3D"m_422014874066076=
8475protonmail_signature_block"><div class=3D"m_4220148740660768475protonma=
il_signature_block-proton m_4220148740660768475protonmail_signature_block-e=
mpty"><br></div></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><br>______=
________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
--f403043c51c0b541b00553b72ca5--
|
