<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:56 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">past the triggering block. A block-chain re-org of two thousand or<br>
more blocks on the main Bitcoin chain is unthinkable-- the economic<br>
chaos would be massive, and the reaction to such a drastic (and<br>
extremely unlikely) event would certainly be a hastily imposed<br>
checkpoint to get everybody back onto the chain that everybody was<br>
using for economic transactions.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
No, the "triggering block" you mentioned is NOT where the hardfork starts. Using BIP101 as an example, the hardfork starts when the first >1MB is mined. For people who failed to upgrade, the "grace period" is always zero, which is the moment they realize a hardfork.<span class=""><br></span></blockquote></div><br>Are there any plans written down anywhere about the "hastily imposed checkpoint" scenario? As far as I know, we would have to check-point on both blockchains because of the way that hard-forks work (creating two separate chains and/or networks). Nothing about this should be an "emergency", we have all the time in the world to prepare a safe and responsible way to upgrade the network without unilaterally declaring obsolescence.<br><div><br></div><div class="gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a href="http://heybryan.org/" target="_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>