1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 675A0ECF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:53:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com
[209.85.220.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDC3D30C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:53:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by padhk3 with SMTP id hk3so19138413pad.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:53:33 -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;
bh=fvC1MjlxUg1/tmvLyU+mrgcBXKNDnQ5+LcLYrnvCjPE=;
b=TqM2jMSeUntUMcDtuGh3cph5nBkyawGVayRLokql9BaUUsZaOmlFP+8BM7h6kzBCwW
0dXtsipjB+XiYgTlMcEwvLTxxC1hbxHEEgXshSxap9FF2DeE0Dp6sE/yWwzQBnoVj1vE
YqaroWCWs+CzhWKai8Occ0x4CH7YWuYIDd+kiJRcNyiAWPqmvtNsHlce4VHfL61XBeNi
gFvA75w7YlM/yna6c7oXlMMqdyTZAdO0gpyh05cHfaUaZM7e01pSZ3nT90PbOkLnTz76
KcW3BxOZ1dJhai5TTfIoj3x/754UoPT98v2d8YI8Ly8EwnBBrOnr5j83L2I6ddJ24h2e
CKCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlCuWFgD6TBIAmtHRf36vHU/CSvZTY/xpJp/ZgeeoZgHEm9YcpjlugejxBLmckJDQC57GU7
X-Received: by 10.68.69.40 with SMTP id b8mr61707051pbu.84.1441828413693;
Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
k2sm1228465pdc.45.2015.09.09.12.53.32
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
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>
<CALqxMTGHiQ_EBfquF8T82H6doueaH04DTmGY9wf5nVhD0kcMgg@mail.gmail.com>
<D727CEA8-7206-4D0A-9815-672C92F73353@me.com>
<55EFA71A.1080102@thinlink.com>
<CAEz79PrV0OOZ+V-YLP4bTyfaHhbMqrP6TAyu-Lt27_guA+wMzg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <55F08E26.9000200@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:53:10 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEz79PrV0OOZ+V-YLP4bTyfaHhbMqrP6TAyu-Lt27_guA+wMzg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------080301060606050802020205"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 19:53:35 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080301060606050802020205
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well let's see. All else being equal, if everybody uses difficulty to
buy big blocks during retarget interval 0, blocks and therefore money
issuance is slower during that interval. Then, the retargeting causes
it to be faster during interval 1. Subsidy got shifted from the
calendar period corresponding to interval 0, to interval 1.
If you change the reward, you can lower the time-frame of the effect to
the order of a single block interval, but there is still an effect.
These schemes do not avoid the need for a hard cap, and there are new
rules for the size of the allowed adjustment, in addition to the main
rule relating difficulty to block size. So it seems they generally have
more complexity than the other blocksize schemes being considered.
On 9/9/2015 11:59 AM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Does it really change the schedule when the next difficulty retarget
> readjusts to an average of 10 minutes again?
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------080301060606050802020205
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Well let's see. All else being equal, if everybody uses difficulty
to buy big blocks during retarget interval 0, blocks and therefore
money issuance is slower during that interval. Then, the
retargeting causes it to be faster during interval 1. Subsidy got
shifted from the calendar period corresponding to interval 0, to
interval 1.<br>
<br>
If you change the reward, you can lower the time-frame of the effect
to the order of a single block interval, but there is still an
effect.<br>
<br>
These schemes do not avoid the need for a hard cap, and there are
new rules for the size of the allowed adjustment, in addition to the
main rule relating difficulty to block size. So it seems they
generally have more complexity than the other blocksize schemes
being considered.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/9/2015 11:59 AM, Warren Togami Jr.
via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEz79PrV0OOZ+V-YLP4bTyfaHhbMqrP6TAyu-Lt27_guA+wMzg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Does it really change the schedule when the next
difficulty retarget readjusts to an average of 10 minutes
again? <br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Tom
Harding via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
There is another concern regarding "flexcap" that was not
discussed.<br>
<br>
A change to difficulty in response to anything BUT
observed block<br>
production rate unavoidably changes the money supply
schedule, unless<br>
you also change the reward, and in that case you've still
changed the<br>
timing even if not the average rate.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------080301060606050802020205--
|
