On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I really think there should be a document before a BIP number is assigned.
There was a document from the start, but after I got the BIP number, I was renaming the file, moving from org-mode to mediawiki and getting the code ready. I'm sorry, I broke the old link to the document, here's the new one: https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-0099.mediawiki Maybe I should create a PR already to have a permanent link, I don't know. As said in the document, the code is now here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.11...jtimon:hardfork-timewarp-0.11 Also, I should mention that one particular discussion related to this BIP (whether we should use Block.nTime, median time or block.nHeight for the activation thresholds) is being discussed in: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009731.html The BIP is currently assuming that the preferred choice for all non-emergency uncontroversial hardforks is defining a starting block.nHeight after which miners start confirming their upgrade. Once the 95% threshold is reached the hardfork takes effect. Long after that, after that first block enforcing the new rules is deeply buried, that check can simply replaced by re-defining the threshold height not with the height when miners started voting, but simply with the height in which the rules started being enforced for the first time (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5966/files ). _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
