Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I was assuming the unconfirmed TX set to stay relatively the same size if the cap was lifted.

First off, you can't take a 1BTC address and create 10000 zero balance outputs  with 0.0001BTC fees. They are invalid and wouldn't be accepted by the rest of network.

Second, even if the attacking miner constructs  non zero output  TX's, he  can't just spring this block onto the network filled with those TX's if the network nodes haven't heard about them beforehand. They will reject  the bloated block since they don't recognize any of the content.

There's a difference between non-standard transactions and invalid transactions.  Non-standard transactions are a subset of valid transactions. Examples of non-standard transactions are TXs with outputs less than the dust limit or TXs with insufficient fees; such transactions may still be valid, however.  

Clients do not relay nonstandard transactions, nor accept them into mempool, but will nonetheless accept a solved block that contains them (provided each TX in the block is still valid).    Example of blocks full of nonstandard (and pointless) transactions are Block #309657 and Block #309740.  They each contain thousands of 1 satoshi dust outputs that will pollute the UTXO set for a long time!

Code:

BLOCK #309740:  10,486 DUST OUTPUTS 
        ADDRESS SENT FROM                                            TX HASH                              N_OUTPUTS     
===================================================================================================================                      
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	b2b6112e73cbe0937a1b60c9abfc4c2ca6e26b2612c90ec598b1cd28787a553e	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	5e5d17901378b8835861d8cc0df2b5f9bf3c86759c3821f96470cd852344d799	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	b2bf7525618ed5402024d5bff6f477a2093965d3f11ececbc2b6a9b5bbe1f5d5	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	3df8f4a7e06486bb3b0700935a16fc6d4fad397dcb6c88b9c4b6a7453301aa54	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	ae05ddfc8aa206b213c71ec0e96723dcd4ff03a71ca76b469d225d1c60d9e262	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	f75b455b4df94bcdcd54985b4aeea9948d2a1dca0f63c65b85ad2d941050c5cf	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	ee61b911610f66f539832699fbbf4ab3955c8bd5ad0cfa570ff500dedcde5bf8	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	a22186cbcf82cac66da17183209f20f76088934c931bec131fe71ad2f250e8f8	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	0469286403543b7d794fe52661135a80142c47ac541793c703fd637a4e9dc0bf	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	a71dc9abd8bae377b661b0c288222acf2ab62fc7bf96b0bab2dd5354fbc91643	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	f437d94c1cfe818c44f4505f3e6506839113ec747d815a867e953a4164276047	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	eb95d902eb841ce23c9c1466e010cbb05d43d1c248376440f9dd56ee1bc8b3e5	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	b62416ceb3453d6dcba95213e4e222915438a4b70eba37e09099110b20be0d52	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	f3aba1c064e9c9a1d49db3bce42c07c184a0b329366994000fa49f0bc8f3ba16	749

BLOCK #309657: 7,490 DUST OUTPUTS
        ADDRESS SENT FROM                                            TX HASH                              N_OUTPUTS     
===================================================================================================================  
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	2e7fdb43e2a0fe17cfe2d283a2da4d375204700aef4bf2c31056125f4383b121	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	3d1105d7c2cd36705b2163fa2d0f74973377467aefea72156a30444f330acf71	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	5c4e56943f3128629ebecb41f5916bd7bc1dceaccc37f29e59c385464f2bf558	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	536adfb745ffaa8c1fb698414475f5ca7d82846eadd912cfe0a76045d78c3198	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	45c7544374e88de47d9be2e3e100f4aa10aafd9469c4dba8d55a870f83c312ab	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	e7ae2378a44a940a8c872a63e43fa67c5a023df4df3f9ca8011611422fc2861c	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	d864e3cc07dc79f221bd91210b274e136159ccbb5c9eafad906d9d08c5558ce5	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	3dedbc086d5cfc81bd3614a1b3fab1bb4d73d8982d9552e811f84f0118a1fc12	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	7337d7ac353a9283c65a1ab99d28f97997784a0fb26d0dc0b59f2fa2556c4460	749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z	634a7fdcba3fe91da07f44e6b9bee1c659cbfca27076bd8b61984d062c071651	749

A miner can fill a block full of nonsense transactions very easily.  

thanks for clarifying that.

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

[rocks]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

The attacks yield zero profit, and in actuality cost money. Only a government agency (or something similar) not driven by profit and highly motivated to stop bitcoin would bother with these types of blockchain/UTXO bloat attacks.

[smooth]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

[cypherdoc]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

[smooth]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The main reason it does make sense is that p2p relaying has no fee.

[rocks]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

[Erdogan]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?

[rocks]

NYT has an article claiming Nick is Satoshi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/business/decoding-the-enigma-of-satoshi-nakamoto-and-the-birth-of-bitcoin.html?_r=0

While I agree the evidence shows him to be in the likely list, there is a pool of other people who worked on similar projects and participated in similar forums, any one of which could be Satoshi as well.

[rocks]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?

Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

[Erdogan]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?

Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule).

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

Ok. And I see that the mempool (I run a standard bitcoind) is even bigger, but according to docs the nodes keep invalid transactions, and logically they therefore also keep the nonstandard transactions, in the memory pool until shutdown. There seems to be no way to display the number of valid and standard transactions waiting in the mempool in a standard node. Correct?

Edit: After (upgrade and) restart of my node, the mempool is only 107 long, i guess those are mostly valid and standard transactions waiting to get in.

[cypherdoc]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?

Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?

[Erdogan]

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?

[cypherdoc]

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?

i wonder why they would even be held.  why not ignored?

[Erdogan]

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?

i wonder why they would even be held.  why not ignored?

Good question.

[cypherdoc]

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?

i wonder why they would even be held.  why not ignored?

Good question.

it's interesting how us non CS trained participants can blur things together.  i guess i should speak for myself; as one unit, as opposed to a separate base protocol layer governed by rigid communication rules interacting with an overlaying program, like Bitcoin Core and other wallets, which have the flexibility to interact with the protocol in any number of ways, including loose agreements.

[rocks]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?

Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?

I'd define it as Bitcoin is the blockchain data structure and the set of rules that govern what constitutes a valid block. If you want to change the rules that govern what is a valid block (transactions and block structure) then that is a fork. Anything else is not a fork. The reasoning is simple, these are the rules that govern if a specific chain is valid and thus govern consensus.

Nodes however can operate however they want, as long as they agree on the rules that define a valid block. If some nodes decide on a different set of rules, then they will be forced onto their own chain and lose consensus with the main chain.

Take Gavin's IBLT proposal as an example. This is a major change to bitcoind that changes how nodes communicate blocks to each other. This is not a fork simply because it does not change anything at all about what defines a valid or invalid block. Just the communication of blocks.

Take LukeJr's insertion of Ubuntu nodes that block SatoshiDice type services into the Ubuntu default client. This was not a fork because he simply made the nodes decide not to relay transactions to/from specific addresses, but these nodes still followed the same rules on what is a valid block, and so they would accept these transactions after they were confirmed in a block. (To do otherwise would be a fork and they would be kicked onto their own tiny chain).

[cypherdoc]

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?

Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?

I'd define it as Bitcoin is the blockchain data structure and the set of rules that govern what constitutes a valid block. If you want to change the rules that govern what is a valid block (transactions and block structure) then that is a fork. Anything else is not a fork. The reasoning is simple, these are the rules that govern if a specific chain is valid and thus govern consensus.

Nodes however can operate however they want, as long as they agree on the rules that define a valid block. If some nodes decide on a different set of rules, then they will be forced onto their own chain and lose consensus with the main chain.

Take Gavin's IBLT proposal as an example. This is a major change to bitcoind that changes how nodes communicate blocks to each other. This is not a fork simply because it does not change anything at all about what defines a valid or invalid block. Just the communication of blocks.

Take LukeJr's insertion of Ubuntu nodes that block SatoshiDice type services into the Ubuntu default client. This was not a fork because he simply made the nodes decide not to relay transactions to/from specific addresses, but these nodes still followed the same rules on what is a valid block, and so they would accept these transactions after they were confirmed in a block. (To do otherwise would be a fork and they would be kicked onto their own tiny chain).

and your definition of a hard vs soft fork?

[Rizla2345]

The stock market seems ripe for a major collapse. Is gold likely to rocket? And bitcoin? Also the dollar has been sagging quite a bit lately. That should help gold but what about BTC?

[sidhujag]

The stock market seems ripe for a major collapse. Is gold likely to rocket? And bitcoin? Also the dollar has been sagging quite a bit lately. That should help gold but what about BTC?

I like the stock market here.. Lots of high risk gamblers will make a fortune in coming time.. Usd also a good buy right now.

[solex]

Compromise solution: up to 500 tps on-chain while keeping the 1MB limit, however, a hard-fork is still needed.

This is an idea which I have been mulling over since Gavin came up with IBLT, but have not expounded because, until recently I did not realise the depth of support within Core dev for maintaining the 1MB. If dev are not able to compromise on a can-kick, e.g. 20MB, or an adaptive limit which leverages the demand for larger blocks with pressure to keep a cleaner UTXO set / better fees market, then there is an alternative. Also, Pieter's "headers-first" change which went live in version 0.10 makes this alternative safer on resync.

A "third way": Decoupling the size limit check on blocks from new block messages.

Today, the 1MB size limit is bluntly used to check any block which a node sees. It does not matter whether the block being checked is 2 years old and just read from disk, or whether it is a new block announcement to a fully-synced node. The principle here is that the 1MB check would be retained for new block announcement messages, but not when processing old blocks, or applied after a new block is constructed from an announcement message.

A hard-fork is still required, as the window is then opened for blocks to be accepted which are >1MB on disk, and to support compression/decompression of new blocks.  All nodes will need to be able to decode blocks which might be compressed by different methods.

Notes:

Bandwidth usage for new blocks is kept to 1MB per 10 minutes. People can continue to mine via TOR.

More than one type of compression would then be supported, e.g. IBLT and transaction hash lists, so miners have a choice of which to use. IBLT could be used on top of hash lists which gives even greater compression. CPU overhead is a consideration.

The network can already handle a much higher tps of real-time unconfirmed tx so block propagation methods which rely on the initial publication of tx are encouraged.
e.g. IBLT usage is incentivized for miners wanting to construct blocks larger than 1MB. This also reduces blockchain spam as miners cannot stuff new blocks >1MB with secret transactions. This reduces the rate of increase in UTXO relative to average block size increase.

Fees on a 20MB disk block would approximate the 6.25 reward in 5 years time. This happy state could be reached while retaining the 1MB limit on new block messages.

Resync would still require sending blocks >1MB, however this is not on the critical path for the whole network, just one node.

Current status:

Wladimir has indicated that he wants to close off version 0.11 soon.
If nothing is done about the 1MB in version 0.11 then one of the last chances is wasted for achieving a smooth transition to larger tx volumes without a period of serious confirmation delays, (user unhappiness, bad publicity, price hit, harm to the network effect).

I suggest that if no compromise is possible in dev on the 1MB then at the very least version 0.11 should prepare the way for block compression, and provide an incentive for it to be used, incorporating software to decode an IBLT, and be able to use transaction hashes like the block relay service. This might take a number of weeks/months, but far less time than waiting for Lightning Networks, tree-chains, or other off-chain scaling solutions.

IMHO, the safest hard fork uses both a block version transition PLUS a 30 or 60 day grace period. i.e. after the 75% target is reached, a delay occurs before the change becomes effective. This achieves mining consensus and also allows non-mining nodes and laggard miners more time to upgrade.

Have at it!