On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 03:31:05AM +0100, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On the other hand when a non-contentious hard fork is rolled out, one could
> argue that it's actually best for everyone if the remaining 1% chain
> doesn't stand a chance of ever reaching 2016 blocks anymore (not even
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> It doesn't matter much where in the difficulty period the fork happens; if
> it happens in the middle, the lower-power fork's difficulty will adjust a
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Question if you'll allow me. This is not about Gavin's latest hard fork
> proposal but in general about any hard (or soft) fork.
>
> I was surprised to see a period expressed in
Hi,
Question if you'll allow me. This is not about Gavin's latest hard fork
proposal but in general about any hard (or soft) fork.
I was surprised to see a period expressed in human time instead of in block
time:
> Blocks with timestamps greater than or equal to the triggering block's
timestamp
