(Replies to multiple emails)
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 12:27:34PM -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> It isn't "$MIN_LOCKIN_TIME + $((10 * 2016)) minutes". It's
> "$MIN_LOCKIN_TIME + time until next retargeting period + $((10 * 2016))
> minutes".
Ah, drat, I forgot about that. Thank you for
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:17:58PM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Not only that, but the "time_until_next_retargeting_period" is a variable
> whose
> distribution could straddle between 0 days and 14 days should the
> MIN_LOCKIN_TIME end up close to a retargeting boundary.
As
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM Russell O'Connor
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:23 PM David A. Harding wrote:
>
>>
>> You need to upgrade by $( date -d "$MIN_LOCKIN_TIME + 11 days" )
>>
>> Ten minute estimators can say:
>>
>> You need to upgrade by $( date -d "$MIN_LOCKIN_TIME + $((10 *
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:23 PM David A. Harding wrote:
>
> You need to upgrade by $( date -d "$MIN_LOCKIN_TIME + 11 days" )
>
> Ten minute estimators can say:
>
> You need to upgrade by $( date -d "$MIN_LOCKIN_TIME + $((10 * 2016))
> minutes" )
>
> And nine minute estimators can say:
>
>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 10:34:57AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The other relevant value of giving enough time for users to upgrade is not
> very sensitive. It's not like 180 days is magic number that going over is
> safe and going below is unsafe.
I don't think it's the 180
As I understand Andrew Chow has a patchset for height based activation
of Speedy Trial, so that it would be great if people could review that
to help increase the review-cycles.
Personally I also somewhat prefer block-height based activation, and
for myself it seems like a mild step backwards to
I'm pretty sure that the question of "is signalling still possible by the
time enough miners have upgraded and are ready to start signalling?"
Strongly benefits from a guaranteed number of signaling periods that height
based activation offers. Especially for the short activation period of
Speedy
I found the "50% chance of activating" a bit confusing of a watermark, so I
asked AJ if he didn't mind producing and tabulating the 10% chance, 50%
chance, and 90% chance to show the sharpness of the bounds better. Each
category below shows the single-shot and repeated trial odds for the range
of
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:39:11PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As such, the main conversation in this agenda item is
> around the pros/cons of height or MTP and determining if we can reach
> consensus
> on either approach.
Here's some numbers.
Given a desired signalling period of xxx
I'd like to pre-register a comment that I don't think signet should be a
consideration for MTP vs height, since taproot is already activated on signet,
and there's no indication that ST will be used in the future (we should
continue our search for the ideal activation method)
Robert Spigler
So the only thing that seemed clear, using height as per bip8, it's not
clear anymore.
And, as usual, we're not talking about activation in general but about
taproot activation, segwit activation...
I won't make it to the meeting because I don't think I have much more to
contribute that I haven't
We'll be having another meeting this Tuesday, as per
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018699.html.
If you can't make it feel free to leave a comment on any agenda item below,
or if you think there are other things to be discussed.
Agenda:
1. AJ's update to MTP
12 matches
Mail list logo
