Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2BED1022 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:59:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 263F63D4 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obuk4 with SMTP id k4so15989071obu.2 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=Qu8mxTaq0omvi1cScj0+e28GQz/nnJm2JT5/RRB7uNc=; b=RQvlOjr9TSNd4LEQCN6uyKdtcSHnlZOr7aXQBnZ872OMxeHtftEkuJ0roupoi4xdQd 7ANvZ2xMEtRJ6zNwTQLfIkw6Oe/20X35Xdf7dGnKmTSOOCkb+STVpS2LBN/ZKJ8q3oDB R7rfHIqa3JWzI3v9cUNjnbZk821NO/1frQAjlsuTmPOiBYwdcWDIiOc5zMzCaONdgB8A 3PwomG7JASCqxKv743ai5XGXZHx0fM1sk3LE/0KubevLR5dGAUMWKUL6EPyNYS4mnmmg gvaDVDSAzj5Zun3Mtdf3klX3wKvdqRAeuai6wJZbYOI3NHAjD4FUPgzGWGMZkv2aH6XD IMzQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.121.201 with SMTP id lm9mr27883461obb.85.1441825159369; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.77.199 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55EFA71A.1080102@thinlink.com> References: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com> <116B26BD-D8E8-4AFD-A619-2EAC348DA5E6@me.com> <55EFA71A.1080102@thinlink.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:59:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Warren Togami Jr." Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01536a5473dc9e051f5514e2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:59:20 -0000 --089e01536a5473dc9e051f5514e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Does it really change the schedule when the next difficulty retarget readjusts to an average of 10 minutes again? On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > There is another concern regarding "flexcap" that was not discussed. > > A change to difficulty in response to anything BUT observed block > production rate unavoidably changes the money supply schedule, unless > you also change the reward, and in that case you've still changed the > timing even if not the average rate. > > --089e01536a5473dc9e051f5514e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Does it really change the schedule when the next difficult= y retarget readjusts to an average of 10 minutes again?=C2=A0

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:27= PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<= br> There is another concern regarding "flexcap" that was not discuss= ed.

A change to difficulty in response to anything BUT observed block
production rate unavoidably changes the money supply schedule, unless
you also change the reward, and in that case you've still changed the timing even if not the average rate.

=
--089e01536a5473dc9e051f5514e2--