On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ross Nicoll <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
BIP99 (still a draft too) currently recommends a minimum height plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation (aka "miner voting") after that for uncontroversial hardforks: https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-0099.mediawiki#Uncontroversial_hardforks http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html But general hardfork activation discussion is still inconclusive in http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009731.html The code for the example uncontroversial hardfork proposed in bip99 is at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.11...jtimon:hardfork-timewarp-0.11 But I haven't created a PR for either the code or the bip yet. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
