References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAK_HAC9v8ZuOKBQQZ4TJa2vdmEuOM-ykqEAMvaLgUn-Cr13Yww@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160304084101.GA2352@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de>
	<CA+XQW1gfnXxxCod6cL=caGnEc66YOvaF6SJL=omUbMqwLNDP7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56E08ADC.30403@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:43:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+XQW1gfnXxxCod6cL=caGnEc66YOvaF6SJL=omUbMqwLNDP7g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm
Precedence: list

On 3/9/2016 3:18 PM, Henning Kopp via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > However, I think it could actually increase
> > confidence in the system if the community is able to demonstrate a go=
od
> > process for making such decisions, and show that we can separate the
> > meaningful underlying principles, such as the coin limit and overall
> > inflation rate, from what is more akin to an implementation detail, a=
s I
> > consider the large-step reward reduction to be.
>
> I do not think that a line can be drawn here. As far as I understood,
> you think that the coin limit is a meaningful underlying principle
> which should not be touched, whereas the halving of mining rewards is
> an implementation detail. The two are very closely tied together and
> changes to both of them would result in a hardfork, if I am not
> mistaken.

I believe that you are mistaken.

The two are almost-completely unrelated, and (as Dr. Back has been
pointing out for a very long time now) the halving of mining rewards can
be modified with a soft fork.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/mining-heart-attack/#smooth-the-disinflati=
on-out