On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Shuning Hong <hongshun...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-11-15 20:16 GMT+08:00 Jorge Timón > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: >> The time threshold must be set enough in the future to give users time to >> upgrade. But we can perceive miners' adoption, so if the system knows they >> haven't upgraded, it should wait for them to upgrade (it would be nice to >> have an equivalent mechanism to wait for the rest of the users, but >> unfortunately there's none). > > If the majority of the miners never upgrade, how could we treat that > BIP? Wait forever?
Assuming it was deployed as an uncontroversial hardfork as recommended in BIP99, the deployment would use versionbits (BIP9) and the hardfork would timeout. But this timeout would clearly signal that either the minimum activation threshold wasn't giving enough time for all users to upgrade (apparently miners didn't had time) or the hardfork is not really an uncontroversial hardfork but rather a schism one. Then, assuming some people still want to deploy it as a schism hardfork, bip99 recommends using only a mediantime threshold without versionbits nor miner upgrade confirmation. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
