[bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks)

Jorge Timón jtimon at jtimon.cc
Thu Jul 23 11:10:45 UTC 2015

Discussions about whether to get miner's confirmation on
uncontroversial hardforks or not, and about whether to use nHeight,
nMedianTime or just use nTime are spreading all around. Hopefully
getting a BIP number (even though this is still a draft) will help
concentrating discussions about deployment of uncontroversial
hardforks to a single place.
Greg, can I get a BIP number for this?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
>> You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a
>> hardfork? How so?
> The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of
> the median of the previous 11 blocks.  At the moment, you need to be greater
> than that value.  This would add a condition at the other end.
> It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit.
> A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to have
> the same timestamp.  This would force the off by 1 and the correct value to
> give the same result.
>> If that's the case, do you have a better candidate?
> I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork,
> especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list