1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69635409
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:12:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com (mail-pd0-f182.google.com
[209.85.192.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC593E2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:12:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdbfa8 with SMTP id fa8so35114444pdb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=+Rzjzvnv9ZIVsmEgLZbngbsQuXzC6gZvjf+8oAYHq6Q=;
b=A+ul7XHUOzrl15VlDmUYJu1foKW1+dPzMdl3uoq7fFgwWNq4sKn/TpiVxaBC+pxim8
zcp+m2gA81WsqRdk9XM2w//ogbfAkcH9tdhlrhn2kf+jYJHuEQ8TJC0RH7p7xvXiDGQi
ME5aQetpwKBBqiFvNMviEGcj5sphAtkeqn8dPuf/HuUaIUcJ3NYJTROolLCjvKLTfQGN
pLJ9blCLnEoZdnV/9pAgxOvF+7v9lEmC42UeLANNCAyGRO2RQSfvZZwR75Ek/VmNTMcN
p9VZm2qiiiFidHLDayb8yS90R+y/eWnI9NotEax7bMmpJJDXoIGNojaYTxnm8LW/4s8V
63zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3XqmA1DDjIoTQ4fV0a4/+FG7tEQpH9Pl01u07gFWEsfiLSgQqPhr2yaKsBFChwQYevT7b
X-Received: by 10.70.90.161 with SMTP id bx1mr92444860pdb.10.1439590374497;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
hh3sm7112164pbc.8.2015.08.14.15.12.52
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
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>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:12:55 -0000
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
|
