Potentially daft question, why not use a minimum height? Yes, it's
imprecise, but over an extended period of time they're good enough IMHO.
I'd have to do more careful calculations to confirm, but block 388,000
should be about right as a minimum.
Ross
On 22/06/2015 22:04, Stephen Morse wrote:
In the nVersion bits proposal that I co-authored we solved that
issue by
comparing the timestamp against the median time, which is
guaranteed by
the protocol rules to monotonically advance.
I'm also a fan of using the median time to ensure that there is a
clear point where the protocol change starts. Something like "blocks
only allow the larger block size if the associate pindex has
pindex->GetMedianTimePast() after midnight 11 Jan 2016 and where a
supermajority showing support for the fork has previously been reached".
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
