Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC05C0070 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:43:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8635E416F1 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:43:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 8635E416F1 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=op.pl header.i=@op.pl header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2011 header.b=DqgVCMeU X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BoRolDx3LYae for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:43:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 02ED5415E0 Received: from smtpo95.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo95.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.149.148]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02ED5415E0 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:43:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq5v.m5r2.onet (pmq5v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.25]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4Ndx0D15KqzljGVP; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:43:40 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=op.pl; s=2011; t=1671821020; bh=dQf38W2oYlyNKfbQk0Zym4y6x1UOBb4itMbJSOuh3x4=; h=From:Cc:To:Date:Subject:From; b=DqgVCMeUMozwP+WpTjJSaqTHFy8j6ktjF/Xc9ACBvGM0WN4G6ZZOmVZi2IqzurIpp /2r3uWQ/uhwp+HmMxHg0FfRg2XdTdwYJrTAYKNWj0SjW4K6hi3mE9kBJM6bKoEyF/j IG9Y0ZuX9Hx/j4cUP13yLxvKW0Bh4tT/sfs2/r9g= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [89.64.65.221] by pmq5v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:43:40 +0100 From: jk_14@op.pl X-Priority: 3 To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:43:36 +0100 Message-Id: <173552838-a7412589a40ea770709d0b227b056bd3@pmq5v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;89.64.65.221;PL;2 X-ONET_PL-MDA-SEGREGATION: 0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:29:07 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pseudocode for robust tail emission X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:43:49 -0000 Necessary or not - it doesn't hurt to plan the robust model, just in case. = The proposal is: Let every 210,000 the code calculate the average difficulty of 100 last ret= argets (100 fit well in 210,000 / 2016 =3D 104.166) and compare with the maximum of all such values calculated before, every 21= 0,000 blocks: if average_diff_of_last_100_retargets > maximum_of_all_previous_average_dif= fs do halving else do nothing This way: 1. system cannot be played 2. only in case of destructive halving: system waits for the recovery of ne= twork security Best Regards Jaroslaw