Discussions about whether to get miner's confirmation on uncontroversial hardforks or not, and about whether to use nHeight, nMedianTime or just use nTime are spreading all around. Hopefully getting a BIP number (even though this is still a draft) will help concentrating discussions about deployment of uncontroversial hardforks to a single place. Greg, can I get a BIP number for this?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> wrote: >> >> You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a >> hardfork? How so? > > > The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of > the median of the previous 11 blocks. At the moment, you need to be greater > than that value. This would add a condition at the other end. > > It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit. > > A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to have > the same timestamp. This would force the off by 1 and the correct value to > give the same result. > >> If that's the case, do you have a better candidate? > > > I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork, > especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > bitcoin-developm...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
