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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88B01D05
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBB413B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EDAE38A2C99;
Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160302:Pavel@janik.cz::kM4eRrqncFgJglpl:1wot
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160302:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::W44e7tUL1EXOMMQR:bhRQa
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Pavel =?utf-8?q?Jan=C3=ADk?= <Pavel@janik.cz>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:35 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org>
<B9C659DC-1954-45C2-B3E6-552A17CDD655@Janik.cz>
In-Reply-To: <B9C659DC-1954-45C2-B3E6-552A17CDD655@Janik.cz>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201603021514.36769.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm
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, 02 Mar 2016 15:14:56 -0000
On Wednesday, March 02, 2016 3:05:08 PM Pavel Jan=C3=ADk wrote:
> > the network. This would result in a significantly longer block interval,
> > which also means a higher per-block transaction volume, which could
> > cause the block size limit to legitimately be hit much sooner than
> > expected.
>=20
> If this happens at all (the exchange rate of the coin can accomodate such
> expectation),
The exchange rate is not significantly influenced by these things.=20
Historically, it seems fairly obvious that the difficulty has followed valu=
e,=20
not value following difficulty.
> the local fee market will develop, fees will raise and complement mined
> coins, thus bringing more miners back to the game (together with expected
> higher exchange rate).
Depends on the hashrate drop, and tolerance for higher fees, both of which =
are=20
largely unknown at this time. At least having code prepared for the negativ=
e=20
scenarios in case of an emergency seems reasonable, even if we don't end up=
=20
needing to deploy it.
Luke
|
