📅 Original date posted:2016-02-06
📝 Original message:On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Responding to "28 days is not long enough" :
Any thoughts on the "95% better than 75%" and "grace period before miner
coordination instead of after" comments ?
> I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-maintained full
nodes-- probably 30 to 40%. Losing those nodes will not be a problem, for
three reasons:
None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that "being lost"
(kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users.
> I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no cost to a longer
grace period.
I didn't say that.
> To bring it back to bitcoin-dev territory: are there any TECHNICAL
arguments why an upgrade would take a business or individual longer than 28
days?
Their own software stack may require more work to integrate the new rules
or their resources may not be immediately available to focus on this within
28 days they hadn't planned.
I believe it wold be less controversial to chose something that nobody can
deny is more than plenty of time for everyone to implement the changes
like, say, 1 year. I wouldn't personally oppose to something shorter like 6
months for really simple changes, but I don't see how 28 can ever be
considered uncontroversial and safe for everyone. Just trying to help in
removing controversy from the PR, but if you still think 28 can be safe and
uncontroversial, feel free to ignore these comments on the concrete length
and please let me know what you think about the other points I raised.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160206/567808a2/attachment.html>;
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 19:48:42
in reply to nevent1q…7xsa
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 19:48:42Event JSON
{
"id": "e77a900aac227cb3f2739a8a56fa61349a42a8ca52992a813b8d5e9a1102f166",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686160122,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"299dc342b2928a854d3cdebebdfa1b5d7d113553560926ba6670328be5b1c1ce",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"236149f9df2892d7a8c3288ab28d305ed1ba9ba052dd2f9f2b36e9a4f81e8312",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3b5311200328974edeaa105b1a8f60d243e653cc63b6bb29f61dc696e04189ed"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-06\n📝 Original message:On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, \"Gavin Andresen\" \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Responding to \"28 days is not long enough\" :\n\nAny thoughts on the \"95% better than 75%\" and \"grace period before miner\ncoordination instead of after\" comments ?\n\n\u003e I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-maintained full\nnodes-- probably 30 to 40%. Losing those nodes will not be a problem, for\nthree reasons:\n\nNone of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that \"being lost\"\n(kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users.\n\n\u003e I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no cost to a longer\ngrace period.\n\nI didn't say that.\n\n\u003e To bring it back to bitcoin-dev territory: are there any TECHNICAL\narguments why an upgrade would take a business or individual longer than 28\ndays?\n\nTheir own software stack may require more work to integrate the new rules\nor their resources may not be immediately available to focus on this within\n28 days they hadn't planned.\n\nI believe it wold be less controversial to chose something that nobody can\ndeny is more than plenty of time for everyone to implement the changes\nlike, say, 1 year. I wouldn't personally oppose to something shorter like 6\nmonths for really simple changes, but I don't see how 28 can ever be\nconsidered uncontroversial and safe for everyone. Just trying to help in\nremoving controversy from the PR, but if you still think 28 can be safe and\nuncontroversial, feel free to ignore these comments on the concrete length\nand please let me know what you think about the other points I raised.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160206/567808a2/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "755872448b812f0d46f3ba11c68bed58e6fb3a5970988582985ef02d35bfe9643c90bf780bac4b826e8e98082199902094c32927bd982c553b47d7a6ef337830"
}