Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72B97FDF for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 03:27:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com (mail-pa0-f45.google.com [209.85.220.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0833BE9 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 03:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padhk3 with SMTP id hk3so58058046pad.3 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:27:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yM/2kIt7bK33KgvadLYLlpH8sopbjnbC2Lasz1BV0Cs=; b=DlpoNY/POJHhAWmGxI7EO00eXluMsGJ1fCJkNprMuns63pkb5IJsml5eD3cuRAoSSq aAwFP345GdzviD6vhxPDOTcAVxE4HXjHz0kCjaBe7RFnR1eajCKV7vMwqMilOz/CVdv7 HC2GFpi2MuhGmxUdEYz3+4w5gWcYrAlK0EHz57mOtSo7iGLimw24e+6+L7Y5NaothAbq s4+Oqa6Q7WfIHjfPBFwbQY/pl0ZP9N/elBfJt3Qj+rPrvjNVZjqzp4P8RTuPWqobToP4 Ki+3bxwNmEbpysKsULnBRKuUQ+oeFFVkm/8KgTbPoDnGdJ5fNThtdsYB0sUdDeHX8As+ vxyg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQljbEhx4BZIvi3h260iScdap9kouBI6wzgI7Hi+k+dhSS76tLiw8wsOaWt+ESLvfDdQBzze X-Received: by 10.68.204.232 with SMTP id lb8mr67116226pbc.146.1441769243584; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id kp7sm5103486pdb.49.2015.09.08.20.27.22 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:27:22 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com> <116B26BD-D8E8-4AFD-A619-2EAC348DA5E6@me.com> From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55EFA71A.1080102@thinlink.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 20:27:22 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:24:20 -0000 There is another concern regarding "flexcap" that was not discussed. A change to difficulty in response to anything BUT observed block production rate unavoidably changes the money supply schedule, unless you also change the reward, and in that case you've still changed the timing even if not the average rate. On 8/14/2015 8:14 AM, Jakob Rönnbäck via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Ah, there we go. I should have dug deeper into the mailing list > > Thanks > > /jakob > >> 14 aug 2015 kl. 17:03 skrev Adam Back : >> >> 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 >