[bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks)
thomas.kerin at gmail.com
Fri Jul 31 17:40:59 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I really think there should be a document before a BIP number is assigned.
On 23/07/15 12:10, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>> the same timestamp. This would force the off by 1 and the correct
>> 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
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
My PGP key can be found here: <https://thomaskerin.io/me.pub.asc>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bitcoin-dev