diff options
| author | Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> | 2015-08-14 16:03:49 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-14 15:03:51 +0000 |
| commit | aa98b9141b86d8317c5c84c9e959249a34274b24 (patch) | |
| tree | 7871fd2f3ecb4a0ce2a95ca0a3bae6acda756461 | |
| parent | abb5456ef3801b16579bff1f97cab6159b1a97fd (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-aa98b9141b86d8317c5c84c9e959249a34274b24.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-aa98b9141b86d8317c5c84c9e959249a34274b24.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Adjusted difficulty depending on relative blocksize
| -rw-r--r-- | f5/832fb3529cdd972f1ca19230556936e639d63e | 139 |
1 files changed, 139 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/f5/832fb3529cdd972f1ca19230556936e639d63e b/f5/832fb3529cdd972f1ca19230556936e639d63e new file mode 100644 index 000000000..508ee2a93 --- /dev/null +++ b/f5/832fb3529cdd972f1ca19230556936e639d63e @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 641E583D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:03:51 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9D60149 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:03:50 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by + mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id + 0M1HiQ-1YXU4r3trk-00tEgJ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:03:49 +0200 +Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so87726379iod.2 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.107.148.8 with SMTP id w8mr52772152iod.116.1439564629278; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.50.104.198 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <116B26BD-D8E8-4AFD-A619-2EAC348DA5E6@me.com> +References: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com> + <CAJS_LCWRagQ40c28SGetxeHxnk8FqY3y_X0OxfqaiLbd25dSGg@mail.gmail.com> + <A6B32C22-4006-434E-9B89-D7C99B5743A8@me.com> + <116B26BD-D8E8-4AFD-A619-2EAC348DA5E6@me.com> +Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:03:49 +0100 +Message-ID: <CALqxMTGHiQ_EBfquF8T82H6doueaH04DTmGY9wf5nVhD0kcMgg@mail.gmail.com> +From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> +To: =?UTF-8?B?SmFrb2IgUsO2bm5iw6Rjaw==?= <jakob.ronnback@me.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:PTFg8t8dKDnYPJyxa/xbJMSuNKmuSijAvSZ/mA2CX4becr1oxYD + Y8iKTq5t91odXaYYNnCAcZJ/ilhAIAK3dFq6pp+LY5MCdugyP0lH7ubSelizRhsKt/J86JO + /heIlF9vHRmfWEpXlj7xjdSbjIPYgh78dov9afZTaVkCCv94FbHY90cWRiA2V0DzdAGbVHa + UMg3XW1CQGNCFexpb7vpQ== +X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:bwsaf9NlZK0=:gnZkJOtKKihOn6TAU4tTCn + Thdz5PfjvM79hkUYYpY0VWqMHnwySRplDaRmLKFpJroM/UqzGbFEOj4EppONpghAHqYiuW/rH + ttmeIAa0RRRwa+VehKPqkQrm+ApahLFmxGxoMWiOs/pfYbnKGks/QPlFqyC1dJIJ4nno168NW + XWzae+t0d+XhNHhRxPNwTCJtbkTaoKwu/GLZ8eTIhnBzf1aPFkku7NzEzmLVxQcS/X1T/EICv + y6vo3FrVjepiu4P78VIyck1/lnUvy6DJX2pWR9WFsxS7x9Nu5kjiegO90zr3HHFXdBVvD5SmQ + NKDS6x+FJA4u0YDwUEmzBdMWgNRyzQomtRrLa/Wy+Rnd5geaRyKTahevN4rud3feD/vSK8otm + D0u7gnHA9UmEAbnunxnzB5uy1TBBQixDNNWct0XNQ9C5hOqRprPKeQK83uM3ejfZgwxCeDIIW + Kp+z7BPxley1V2NAYJFUketP3fWRfXgluG3zyCctpjeiMgTXMGVGhLQYI5cIqD2KW0Cpto53E + VHAiybsD+F/Dwl5saBD1WKzoq+hd/pj2HGTYVQwSQprskMLlrv7GNBJ1lInZ/D8ml4j/+dWfK + uyqIBJYPn1jUK6MM1OdWdkt1ElkNHtPr62Fwwuj3nFVMVANmMII+sKfNkgbKTuBzsYEtqcoka + ozipLZCo4sbdOKbhWTENWmIcqKimfjs5+7h7+ceItsHOugiYQ8Jb2skMxrM/aoGx0PWgSS0hb + Trql0Mo4JmDvH1jW +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Adjusted difficulty depending on relative + blocksize +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:03:51 -0000 + +There is a proposal that relates to this, see the flexcap proposal by +Greg Maxwell & Mark Friedenbach, it was discussed on the list back in +May: + +http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008017.html + +and http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008038.= +html + +Adam + +On 14 August 2015 at 15:48, Jakob R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> +> 14 aug 2015 kl. 16:20 skrev Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>: +> +> On 14 August 2015 at 11:59, Jakob R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck +> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +>> +>> What if one were to adjust the difficulty (for individual blocks) +>> depending on the relative size to the average block size of the previous +>> difficulty period? (I apologize if i=E2=80=99m not using the correct ter= +ms, I=E2=80=99m not +>> a real programmer, and I=E2=80=99ve only recently started to subscribe t= +o the +>> mailing list) +> +> +> That would mean that as usage grew, blocksize could increase, but +> confirmation times would also increase (though presumably less than +> linearly). That seems like a loss? +> +> +> Would that really be the case though? If it takes 5% to find a block, but= + it +> contains 5% more transactions would that not mean it=E2=80=99s the same? = +That would +> argue against the change if not for the fact that the blocks will be bigg= +er +> for the next difficulty period. +> +> If you also let the increase in confirmation time (due to miners finding +> harder blocks rather than a reduction in hashpower) then get reflected ba= +ck +> as decreased difficulty, it'd probably be simpler to just dynamically adj= +ust +> the max blocksize wouldn't it? +> +> +> I guess that could make the difficulty fluctuate a bit depending on the +> amount of transactions and the fees being paid. Would it really matter in +> the long run though? Since it=E2=80=99s the same amount of miners, doesn= +=E2=80=99t that just +> mean it=E2=80=99s just the number that is lower, not the actual investmen= +t needed to +> mine the blocks? Not sure if this would open up some forms of attacks on = +the +> system for someone willing to lose money though=E2=80=A6 +> +> +> Very good feedback though, thanks a lot :) +> +> /jakob +> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + |