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
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 641E583D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:03:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9D60149
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:03:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0M1HiQ-1YXU4r3trk-00tEgJ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:03:49 +0200
Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so87726379iod.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.148.8 with SMTP id w8mr52772152iod.116.1439564629278;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.104.198 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <116B26BD-D8E8-4AFD-A619-2EAC348DA5E6@me.com>
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>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:03:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CALqxMTGHiQ_EBfquF8T82H6doueaH04DTmGY9wf5nVhD0kcMgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: =?UTF-8?B?SmFrb2IgUsO2bm5iw6Rjaw==?= <jakob.ronnback@me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:PTFg8t8dKDnYPJyxa/xbJMSuNKmuSijAvSZ/mA2CX4becr1oxYD
Y8iKTq5t91odXaYYNnCAcZJ/ilhAIAK3dFq6pp+LY5MCdugyP0lH7ubSelizRhsKt/J86JO
/heIlF9vHRmfWEpXlj7xjdSbjIPYgh78dov9afZTaVkCCv94FbHY90cWRiA2V0DzdAGbVHa
UMg3XW1CQGNCFexpb7vpQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:bwsaf9NlZK0=:gnZkJOtKKihOn6TAU4tTCn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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 15:03:51 -0000
There is a proposal that relates to this, see the flexcap proposal by
Greg Maxwell & Mark Friedenbach, it was discussed on the list back in
May:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008017.html
and http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008038.=
html
Adam
On 14 August 2015 at 15:48, Jakob R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 14 aug 2015 kl. 16:20 skrev Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>:
>
> On 14 August 2015 at 11:59, Jakob R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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 ter=
ms, I=E2=80=99m not
>> a real programmer, and I=E2=80=99ve only recently started to subscribe t=
o the
>> mailing list)
>
>
> That would mean that as usage grew, blocksize could increase, but
> confirmation times would also increase (though presumably less than
> linearly). That seems like a loss?
>
>
> Would that really be the case though? If it takes 5% to find a block, but=
it
> contains 5% more transactions would that not mean it=E2=80=99s the same? =
That would
> argue against the change if not for the fact that the blocks will be bigg=
er
> for the next difficulty period.
>
> If you also let the increase in confirmation time (due to miners finding
> harder blocks rather than a reduction in hashpower) then get reflected ba=
ck
> as decreased difficulty, it'd probably be simpler to just dynamically adj=
ust
> the max blocksize wouldn't it?
>
>
> I guess that could make the difficulty fluctuate a bit depending on the
> amount of transactions and the fees being paid. Would it really matter in
> the long run though? Since it=E2=80=99s the same amount of miners, doesn=
=E2=80=99t that just
> mean it=E2=80=99s just the number that is lower, not the actual investmen=
t needed to
> mine the blocks? Not sure if this would open up some forms of attacks on =
the
> system for someone willing to lose money though=E2=80=A6
>
>
> Very good feedback though, thanks a lot :)
>
> /jakob
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
