I understand your proposal, but I don't see what it accomplishes compared to applying the new rule from the start (in your own blocks) and wait for 95% for consensus activation (which is my preference and it's much simpler to implement). What are the disadvantages of my approach? What are the advantages of yours? On Sep 16, 2015 4:57 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Timón <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 16, 2015 4:49 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > At 75%, if someone sets the bit, then they should be creating valid >> blocks (under the rule). >> >> You shouldn't rely on that, some may start applying the restrictions in >> their own blocks at 0% and others only at 90%. Until it becomes a consensus >> rule it is just part of the standard policy (and we shouldn't rely on nodes >> following the standard policy). >> > > It would be a consensus rule. If >75% of the blocks in the last 2016 > window have the bit set, then reject all blocks that have the bit set and > fail to meet the rule. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
