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
|
Return-Path: <henning.kopp@uni-ulm.de>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7BFBBF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:32 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from smtp.uni-ulm.de (smtp.uni-ulm.de [134.60.1.26])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65958367
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:34:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at uni-ulm.de
Received: from banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de (banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de
[134.60.77.114]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.uni-ulm.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v65EQrJX026410
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:27:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:26:53 +0200
From: Henning Kopp <henning.kopp@uni-ulm.de>
To: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
Message-ID: <20170705142653.GA15084@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de>
References: <BLUPR0301MB200297FEF1BF16D950BCF981EED40@BLUPR0301MB2002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
<20170705140208.GJ4885@hostname.unassigned>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170705140208.GJ4885@hostname.unassigned>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
X-DCC-x.dcc-servers-Metrics: poseidon 104; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] difficulty adjustment (was: The Nuclear Option:
BIP148 + MR POWA)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 05 Jul 2017 14:34:47 -0000
Hi,
> I would also highly advise finding a simple and robust difficulty adjustment
> that occurs every block instead of bitcoin/litecoin's 2016 block use.
I also thought about this some time ago. But note that this implies
that forks grow with the same block frequency as the main chain. Thus
the longest chain rule becomes irrelevant, since all chains will have
the same length (in expectancy). Rather, the chain with most work is
the true one.
Best
Henning
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:02:08PM +0000, Troy Benjegerdes via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The fastest way to triple Bitcoin capacity is to split the network into
> two or three different blockchains. We encourage forks of software, why
> are blockchains somehow different?
>
> Yes, this is risky, and probably volatile.
>
> I honestly don't expect lots of people with large amounts of money
> invested (exchanges, financial institutions, etc) to go along with
> something like this, and that say 90% of the wealth with stay concentrated
> in whatever chain has the majority SHA256 hashpower.
>
> But as a game-theory excercise to see who's theories actually work?
>
> I highly encourage a real-world test of all these theories.
>
> I would also highly advise finding a simple and robust difficulty adjustment
> that occurs every block instead of bitcoin/litecoin's 2016 block use.
>
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:18:36AM +0000, John Hardy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > This idea is highly contentious as it would guarantee a viable chain of Bitcoin with SegWit activated whether BIP148 gained sufficient support or not. I am not necessarily advocating it - just putting it out for discussion. While the downside is that it could permanently split the network, the upside is that it could heap additional pressure on miners to follow the BIP148 chain and ensure a minimally disruptive upgrade. This is pure game theory.
> >
> >
> >
> > MR POWA (Mining Reactive Proof of Work Addition) is a method to introduce an additional proof of work to a blockchain in response to a detected mining behaviour.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the case of BIP148, the criteria for activation could be when the software detects a non-BIP148 compliant chain that is 144 blocks (24 hours) ahead of a BIP148 compliant chain.
> >
> >
> >
> > At this stage the software would change its consensus rules (hard fork) to do two things:
> >
> > * Lower the difficulty for existing PoW method (SHA256).
> >
> > * Introduce a second POW method, such as Scrypt or Ethash, that is incompatible with SHA256 hardware but already has an established mining industry for altcoins.
> >
> >
> >
> > The difficulty should be low, and blocks will initially be found much more quickly than every 10 minutes until the difficulty adjusts. Each method would have its own difficulty. It could be a requirement that POW methods alternate to neutralise attacks from the other chain.
> >
> >
> >
> > This would guarantee SegWit activation. Anybody who is already running a BIP148 node could just as easily run a BIP148 + MR POWA node. This could not realistically be supported by Core and would have to be implemented in a grassroots movement, similar to BIP148.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ideally, it would just force the miners to follow the BIP148 chain (or risk the value of their hardware being hurt) and the code would never be activated. MR POWA would mean BIP148 miners would no longer need to ?hold their nerve? as they would be guaranteed a viable chain and rewarded for their early support.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > John Hardy
> >
> > john@seebitcoin.com
> >
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
Henning Kopp
Institute of Distributed Systems
Ulm University, Germany
Office: O27 - 3402
Phone: +49 731 50-24138
Web: http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/~kopp
|
