MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Adjusted difficulty depending on relative
	blocksize
Precedence: list

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
>