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
|
Return-Path: <zawy@yahoo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8A71A7F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:30:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sonic307-10.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
(sonic307-10.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [98.137.64.34])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55241F8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:30:00 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048;
t=1507685399; bh=otAQfAQl9uCekeIlPDtMMIBw8IIsMiCGIPpmv1GHkj4=;
h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:References:From:Subject;
b=ndzEwF8W1kDaBIVnvZGtqUp7waIBvYAp0xbC3CuDnF+CppX5HVYOo7/VhY89ivAZcfe4ey5360l9LGv5gSxGss48/nTnBUyg9ZFf6895PKBDNIpN+aq25CWbSzi1Xfup959LCrPWInl5WzW+OSYC1u+WI77nrvLCjK6sZply+7ohUnscUObXve0Q+LSBFtZZ0nQxNTjDdtTYFXBndlayr83sOjO/qluqg/At60/0PkLdXTisl6sqL48SrlwVRapZ7sI7DDuQpL4HehyLSIa5MNRZZB7n21gF4BmZBADDxu+JGSZlrKsTdnVCND+5Ugt1zjYkSWut2fuxXpEKDNkEng==
X-YMail-OSG: Y0UXWi8VM1nJh7UTc45Le3CRZnJUGC3dp7bCGkQhWVWHjJpdfj46wyPuLKGZybs
mxU1YvVYGJT4i1F8hAhFmaE_qOe1KYqJPT5A5R28URAzyfh2D_ZJf_h4uM7SruZ8FTfrapr5TT4i
kcpfW0b942Ltax7mv6p_h6ww9wuR4oA_00g4FFHwC3LXYzA846C81nWaMYjS5j9I2uLQ5u8NdZnc
.HXIzcjLcib4jUAko0YzhCplKJGGjoE2Xy8LroFYLYgB9umLy_ilpDk3dNI7ThPQ_3ydbJWyOd7I
khYt7HTgCcKw4aJuc.AQAn36kK._imdUzj_RSwVQjZ9e6mSR3kQT.0Epawx7CI2x0CtpDpeQ4VSO
pEooh_VwEb9Qe8ka7KsvmnnT7y3Dc.hT1pW9OTzMfwv4jYCKKlj3u3w9B_6WxSDCUiWw_h5tt.nk
nD.K7US0nhlEqBDDwt_ncoBhkd6C9RtXj
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by
sonic307.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with HTTP;
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:29:59 +0000
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:29:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Scott Roberts <zawy@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Scott Roberts <zawy@yahoo.com>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <1885357.5164984.1507685394910@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <1885357.5164984.1507685394910.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.10668 YahooMailNeo Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64;
x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/61.0.3163.100
Safari/537.36
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:30:56 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New difficulty algorithm needed for
SegWit2x fork? (reformatted text)
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, 11 Oct 2017 01:30:00 -0000
I agree: a new difficulty algorithm starting from zero is inconceivably
rushed. But it's also inconceivable to not have one ready in two months
if my understanding of our current situation is correct. Is there any
complaint or suggestion about this algorithm or the appropriate goals of
an ideal difficulty algorithm? I feel like there is a discussion that needs
to be hashed out before a draft BIP at the HF page, but I do not know
where is best or who would be interested. If the community shows it is
receptive and supportive I think I could get Karbowanek coin to put it
into live action and solicit hash attacks. They are currently using a
simpler N=17 like this since last November. They have tested all my
attempted improvements the past few months, so they are familiar with all
the in and outs.
This particular coin split is looking different. Assuming users currently
prefer SW, it still seems like miner support is going to convince enough
users that SegWit2x is a worthy if not superior alternative. The result
could be both coins oscillating with long delays, as long as the price is
similar. As soon as it is not similar, maybe the loser will be in a death
spiral, pushed to the margin like previous coins. This might be a bitcoin
feature. But the 2016 window seems like it is too brutal. It seems like it
will result in an accidental winner before the better coin can be
determined by more rational means.
|
