On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they > are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable > to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay > activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second > you would never meet the threshold (although this would come a the penalty > of hiking the difficulty dramatically). > > On the other hand, the exact date of a height based thresholds is hard to > predict a long time in advance due to difficulty fluctuations. However, > there is certainty at a given block height and it's easy to monitor. > You could get most of the best of both with a combination of the two: Have the activation be a timestamp plus a certain number of blocks to come after maybe about 100, which is more than enough to make sure all the games which can be played with timestamps have passed but a small enough amount that it doesn't add much uncertainty to wall clock time.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
