Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QwGs7-0003oo-QP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:04:11 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1QwGs7-0002FR-5K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:04:11 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E20356072F; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03:59 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Gregory Maxwell Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:45 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108241303.47660.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1QwGs7-0002FR-5K Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to schedule a blockchain split? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:04:11 -0000 On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:46:42 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > > - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something that > > can dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it > > can't be gamed? > > Too early for that. Dynamically adapting would be by design never too early/late. Changing from a fixed 1 MB will fork the block chain, which should be a minimized event. > > - Adjust difficulty every block, without limits, based on a N-block > > sliding window. I think this would solve the issue when the hashrate > > drops overnight, but maybe also add a block time limit, or perhaps > > include the "current block" in the difficulty calculation? > > The quantized scheme limits the amount of difficulty skew miners can > create by lying about timestamps to about a half a percent. A rolling > window with the same time constant would allow much more skew. Depends on the implementation, I'd think. > > Replacing the "Satoshi" 64-bit integers with > > "Satoshi" variable-size fractions (ie, infinite numerator + denominator) > > Increasing precision I would agree with but, sadly, causing people to > need more than 64 bit would create a lot of bugs. > > infinite numerator + denominator is absolutely completely and totally > batshit insane. For one, it has weird consequences that the same value > can have redundant encodings. So? You can already have redundant transactions simply by changing the order of inputs/outputs. A good client would minimize the transaction size by reducing them, of course. > Most importantly, it suffers factor inflation: If you spend inputs > 1/977 1/983 1/991 1/997 the smallest denominator you can use for the > output 948892238557. I already tried to address this in my original mail. If I had those 4 coins, I would use a denominator of 987 and discard the difference as fees.