path: root/84/5ee762f2d16de11829a9c32cdf21c0a6e02f62

Return-Path: <gubatron@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B11B068
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com
	[209.85.223.179])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17A1BE8
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:32:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so84612720iod.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=8ydMUjydoCM2tRM0s0ODpjj82qq+/bOQxLZMKzASuIE=;
	b=iPW6yLc08qAehtBfn6+j6XwsxLC34hNTlMUgjRasAtb5MPRY+I4/n+TPsHDxXbsrlW
	jBd0uS3eR3SPSHzpHP5zAeR5x6Q5eEIeJtCXdsJUD0GNaJGROqlxmOgWXb9udTdbCR9Q
	Hg4w5MPFgMvoFM5THJw+h7lXphBRgOh5HguS9QqogVoUJSbqlgaFpPr+xva1Nh6Yfna/
	vnN6Gs3AtpvJoQj7akeuKMaGcj8ATLMiEoPIBUQzwV0HPQcORb0QXtFpLqb0lU5YdnD4
	Zq7QhG5GJscpu4ToFvpBMQB7PAW2F//Az7OruxO9xSfRdfOcDU+yZ36yL2sTV+Ho/s6w
	U2kw==
X-Received: by 10.107.15.39 with SMTP id x39mr6828890ioi.156.1439559173302;
	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.122.144 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com>
References: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com>
From: Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:32:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZB0_YvvDDq4XzfvQeeWJ2oZxPukP0oXYSrEeC3gy9_Fk0ZuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?SmFrb2IgUsO2bm5iw6Rjaw==?= <jakob.ronnback@me.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed93a286e64051d457d8c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:32:54 -0000

--001a113ed93a286e64051d457d8c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Like this?
https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4

http://twitter.com/gubatron

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jakob R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> a thought occurred to me that I would love to hear what some bitcoin
> experts think about.
>
> 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 term=
s, I=E2=80=99m not
> a real programmer, and I=E2=80=99ve only recently started to subscribe to=
 the
> mailing list)
>
>
> In practice:
>
> 1. calculate average block size for the previous difficulty period (is it
> 2016-blocks?)
> 2. when trying to find a new block adjust the difficulty by adding the
> relative size difference. For instance, if i=E2=80=99m trying to create a=
 block
> half (or double) the size of the average block size for the previous
> difficulty period then my difficulty will be 2x the normal one=E2=80=A6 i=
f I=E2=80=99m
> trying to make one that is 30% bigger (or smaller) then the difficulty is
> 1.3 times the normal one
>
>
> Right now this would force miners to make blocks as close to 1mb as
> possible (since the block reward >> fees). But unless I=E2=80=99m mistake=
n sometime
> in the future the block size should be adjusted to maximize the fees=E2=
=80=A6
>
>
> Could the concept be useful somehow?
>
> I apologize if it=E2=80=99s been discussed before or if it=E2=80=99s a st=
upid idea, I
> would have run it by some other people, but I=E2=80=99m afraid I don=E2=
=80=99t know anyone
> that have any interest in bitcoin.
>
> Regards
> /jakob
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a113ed93a286e64051d457d8c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Like this?<br><a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/gubatron/=
143e431ee01158f27db4">https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4=
</a><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=
=3D"gmail_signature"><a href=3D"http://twitter.com/gubatron" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://twitter.com/gubatron</a><br></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jakob R=C3=
=B6nnb=C3=A4ck <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Greetings,<br>
<br>
a thought occurred to me that I would love to hear what some bitcoin expert=
s think about.<br>
<br>
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 terms, I=E2=80=99=
m not a real programmer, and I=E2=80=99ve only recently started to subscrib=
e to the mailing list)<br>
<br>
<br>
In practice:<br>
<br>
1. calculate average block size for the previous difficulty period (is it 2=
016-blocks?)<br>
2. when trying to find a new block adjust the difficulty by adding the rela=
tive size difference. For instance, if i=E2=80=99m trying to create a block=
 half (or double) the size of the average block size for the previous diffi=
culty period then my difficulty will be 2x the normal one=E2=80=A6 if I=E2=
=80=99m trying to make one that is 30% bigger (or smaller) then the difficu=
lty is 1.3 times the normal one<br>
<br>
<br>
Right now this would force miners to make blocks as close to 1mb as possibl=
e (since the block reward &gt;&gt; fees). But unless I=E2=80=99m mistaken s=
ometime in the future the block size should be adjusted to maximize the fee=
s=E2=80=A6<br>
<br>
<br>
Could the concept be useful somehow?<br>
<br>
I apologize if it=E2=80=99s been discussed before or if it=E2=80=99s a stup=
id idea, I would have run it by some other people, but I=E2=80=99m afraid I=
 don=E2=80=99t know anyone that have any interest in bitcoin.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
/jakob<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113ed93a286e64051d457d8c--