Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bw0-f47.google.com; 
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:13:12 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; )
References: <201111231035.48690.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<CAGQP0AEZ9CUNd9ERyMsx741bqjLptY4pPRU6EmxQcD7kR8bdbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALxbBHVEvCqun0aX_9awGhW39h5cx0jLPx2ptoesBcmKGO-_Dw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALxbBHVEvCqun0aX_9awGhW39h5cx0jLPx2ptoesBcmKGO-_Dw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1771003.jepphUgMgD";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201111231313.12534.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Addressing rapid changes in mining power
Precedence: list

--nextPart1771003.jepphUgMgD
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2011 November 23 Wednesday, Christian Decker wrote:

> The current block generation with a fixed difficulty was chosen because it
> it clear when to adjust and to what target difficulty it has to be
> adjusted. If we were to use synchronized time windows and select the
> hardest block it gets incredibly complicated as synchronization is not
> possible in distributed systems. Even the smallest drift would allow for
> forks in the chain all over the place. Furthermore the delay in propagati=
on
> will also cause forks.
>=20
> If 1/2 of the network see one block as the hardest, and for the rest of t=
he
> network it came too late then we'll have a fork that stays with us quite a
> while.
>=20
> The block chain is described as a timestamp server in the paper, but it is
> more of a proof-of-existence before, as the contained timestamp cannot be
> trusted anyway.

These are reasonable objections.  My counter is this:

Let's view block difficulty as a measure of time, not time itself.  The=20
timestamp is merely a convenience for the block.  You cannot fake the=20
computing power needed for a particular difficulty; so the hardest chain=20
always wins (note: hardest chain).

If I am a miner, I have two choices:

  (a) try to replace the top block on the current hardest chain
  (b) try to append to the current hardest chain

Either of these is acceptable; but in case (a) I have to generate a more=20
difficult block to replace it; in case (b), at the start of the window, any=
=20
difficulty is acceptable (however, I'm competing with other miners, so _any=
_=20
difficulty won't beat them).

The rule then is that you're trying to win the one block reward that is=20
available every 10 minutes; and your peers will be rejecting blocks with=20
timestamps that are lies.

Perhaps an example...

 - I (a node), download the blockchain
 - The blockchain has N potential heads.  Each of those heads has a time, t
   and a sum_of_difficulty.
 - The next block reward is going to go to the highest difficulty with
   t < timestamp < (t + T) _and_ verified timestamp (i.e. not received more
   than, say 5 minutes, from its claimed timestamp).
 - I can choose any head to start generating from, but given that it's the
   highest difficulty chain that's going to win the next reward (not the=20
   highest difficulty block), I will surely pick the most difficult?
 - A rogue miner then issues a block with a fake timestamp; it actually
   generated at (t + T + 5) but claims (t + 5).  Should I start using
   that block as my new head?  Obviously not, because my peers might decide
   that it is a lie and reject it because it was received too late, making =
my
   work useless.  It is in my interest to pick a head that is honest.

Resolving forks is easy:

 - 50 coins every ten minutes only
 - most difficult chain wins

I'm certainly not saying it's a simple change.  There are certainly areas I=
=20
haven't thought about, and could be game-overs; but I do like the idea of=20
there being no target difficulty, and instead the blocks are issued at a fi=
xed=20
ten minute rate (or rather the rewards are).


Andy

=2D-=20
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com

--nextPart1771003.jepphUgMgD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk7M8WgACgkQwQJ9gE9xL23jUwCeMGn+f43h9T9S9D8eWD1GpgUL
WacAniocPuMKKHd/dH3stLrPyQK5Sc41
=Th78
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1771003.jepphUgMgD--