To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
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>
	<CALqxMTGHiQ_EBfquF8T82H6doueaH04DTmGY9wf5nVhD0kcMgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <55CE67E6.3020905@thinlink.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:12:54 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTGHiQ_EBfquF8T82H6doueaH04DTmGY9wf5nVhD0kcMgg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Adjusted difficulty depending on relative
	blocksize
Precedence: list

Nobody mentioned exchange rates.  Those matter to miners too.

Does it make sense for George Soros and every other rich person /
institution to have the power to move difficulty, even pin it to min or
max, just by buying or selling piles of BTC to swing the exchange rate?


On 8/14/2015 8:03 AM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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 Rönnbäck
> <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 Rönnbäck
>> <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’m not using the correct terms, I’m not
>>> a real programmer, and I’ve only recently started to subscribe to 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’s the same? That would
>> argue against the change if not for the fact that the blocks will be bigger
>> 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 back
>> as decreased difficulty, it'd probably be simpler to just dynamically adjust
>> 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’s the same amount of miners, doesn’t that just
>> mean it’s just the number that is lower, not the actual investment 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…
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev