{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-22\n📝 Original message:The BIP-100 proposal uses a window of 12000 blocks (83 days) rather than\nthe standard 1000.  Given that the threshold is lower than is normal for\nhard-forks, noise on the measurement could cause an activation even if less\nthan 75% of miners agree.  It also means that the vote has to be sustained\nfor longer and inherently gives a longer notice period.\n\nTwo weeks seems low for an upgrade warning.  I guess there would be an\nalert on the network.\n\nDo old nodes detect an upgrade by version numbers?  If that was headers\nonly, then they could detect that large blocks have activated.\n\nHave you considered a \"fail\" condition?  For example, if 750 of the last\n1000 blocks set bits 4 and 14, then it counts as a rejection by 75% of the\nminers.  Alternatively, if the rule doesn't activate by 11th Jan 2017, then\nit is disabled.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/c4698689/attachment.html\u003e"}