From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:45 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201108241303.47660.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to
	schedule a blockchain split?
Precedence: list

On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:46:42 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something that
> > can dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it
> > can't be gamed?
> 
> Too early for that.

Dynamically adapting would be by design never too early/late. Changing from a 
fixed 1 MB will fork the block chain, which should be a minimized event.

> > - Adjust difficulty every block, without limits, based on a N-block
> > sliding window. I think this would solve the issue when the hashrate
> > drops overnight, but maybe also add a block time limit, or perhaps
> > include the "current block" in the difficulty calculation?
> 
> The quantized scheme limits the amount of difficulty skew miners can
> create by lying about timestamps to about a half a percent. A rolling
> window with the same time constant would allow much more skew.

Depends on the implementation, I'd think.

> > Replacing the "Satoshi" 64-bit integers with
> > "Satoshi" variable-size fractions (ie, infinite numerator + denominator)
> 
> Increasing precision I would agree with but, sadly, causing people to
> need more than 64 bit would create a lot of bugs.
> 
> infinite numerator + denominator is absolutely completely and totally
> batshit insane. For one, it has weird consequences that the same value
> can have redundant encodings.

So? You can already have redundant transactions simply by changing the order 
of inputs/outputs. A good client would minimize the transaction size by 
reducing them, of course.

> Most importantly, it suffers factor inflation: If you spend inputs
> 1/977 1/983 1/991 1/997 the smallest denominator you can use for the
> output 948892238557.

I already tried to address this in my original mail. If I had those 4 coins, I 
would use a denominator of 987 and discard the difference as fees.