Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B11B068 for ; 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 ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:32:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so84612720iod.0 for ; 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 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:32:33 -0400 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?SmFrb2IgUsO2bm5iw6Rjaw==?= 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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


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

a thought occurred to me that I would love to hear what some bitcoin expert= s 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 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)


In practice:

1. calculate average block size for the previous difficulty period (is it 2= 016-blocks?)
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


Right now this would force miners to make blocks as close to 1mb as possibl= e (since the block reward >> 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


Could the concept be useful somehow?

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.

Regards
/jakob
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113ed93a286e64051d457d8c--