Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1756A55 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 05:11:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (mail-oi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94BE4196 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 05:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id m82so7973936oif.1 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 21:11:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=GZT2KTMdC0yeJwmrbKkO+umPjpIj8bG2B+hSLiP19XQ=; b=ZFeFip41c5j3m8RhNfFAKBIxy4mlLAO90XVW+MF3AmbxJkgcShvhhR3HFBhv2QXtnj HNQVPuuOAfPBM1LZ2EqMi/e94cGQaJIazmiUZwm1k2VxdCx1ZfsUFv2IZeAuOMTOZ7b3 VjjpJLSBHCLiBqR7ckSVcyD/uxpaeSxn0mkzIqbL3TcOYACr8PotBMUG+g7kHixqv6Dh ZFIK4JetJ+ogcCJEuffTAG9jkiMMgPgYrx6vsDsaxISlZhLlsgru9kOhvG41WdY818SR XqqqYxEhvxRAvmRa8GnV4d0qVJZfctLvXc0nwsymMINFD4iE5Cok2I3NGyfm8UG0LsFS BBdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=GZT2KTMdC0yeJwmrbKkO+umPjpIj8bG2B+hSLiP19XQ=; b=A/xwk4IaZSWA+oH9XPDEh1771iU69k0y4UcwFf0gAcG7xzib2j4oHz/FyDzfyDXAPX G7S+VIM2kjZyGutdEjSZaWI3lpXGCsgx7wSoDD+UmSG3fsHh0+XvN/t50thHraOqRbUY 0vraoQ7s2rOEXDDkFiz5uWQV0KxhxALSlVzHW2+Pt7b2+LVLumA+ULHVUznso4axvagb 9Z/ZBQx+CPOst6nqqf7oxw64t9ljHJ8lkbse4UO0dc5MkzbmdlDDndxpN3l3i6ItWIDh DpLZErsHEpsger2Ecqa/bvaj/83vhtl7TP8ldJj3R2sv6WJ+QCh0VZMepPb5U1+nQ8QI foJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKW5sbcu1AjmNed7uLhWTe0b2W1KK3V2HDK16sydwszebwZbb20TO714xrU7MOOzuFS2LJNNzpKbbeLfQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.91.135 with SMTP id p129mr403862oib.19.1456981876891; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.55.71 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160302230213.GA888@muck> References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org> <201603021542.29609.luke@dashjr.org> <56D71488.4080607@gmail.com> <00e101d174b5$f2659060$d730b120$@voskuil.org> <20160302230213.GA888@muck> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:11:16 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1W8KEjcjYz0GkEQfVyIac8aeHDg Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d4b903769d3052d1e0737 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:02:05 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm 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: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 05:11:18 -0000 --001a113d4b903769d3052d1e0737 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It makes sense to me that there might be objective conditions under which we would want to use a number smaller than 2016. A good example would be a mean time between blocks of more than 20 minutes over the last 144 blocks (one - two days). If such an occurrence ever happened, and the software then cut the retarget interval to 1008 (triggering an immediate retarget if the counter is over 1008), the only problem I see is how to measure the mean time between blocks. In fact, has anyone examined the potential problems of reducing the retarget period, even to one? Not Really. That question includes a suggestion of retargeting on every block, but using the same 2016 block window for the calculation, so difficulty changes would be very smooth, and still as unpredictable and how long till we find the next block. On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months o= n > low subsidy would not be made=E2=80=A6 > > > > > > > > Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made base= d > on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are perfect= ly > knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why inflation in > Bitcoin is not a tax, it=E2=80=99s a cost. These step functions are made = continuous > by their predictability, removing that predictability will make them -- > unpredictable. > > You know, I do agree with you. > > But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that > strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change > any rule currently in Bitcoin. > > It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin > limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt, > drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same > UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution. > > If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving, > all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those > coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to > go mine something different we have to accept that under our current > chosen rules confirmations might take a long time. > > > Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly > unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 000000000000000004d430e1daab776bc1c194589b0326924220faa00efc50cf > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --=20 I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a techie? I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha). I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin. I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto --001a113d4b903769d3052d1e0737 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It makes sense to me that there might be objecti= ve conditions under which we would want to use a number smaller than 2016.= =C2=A0 A good example would be a mean time between blocks of more than 20 m= inutes over the last 144 blocks (one=C2=A0 - two days).=C2=A0 If such an oc= currence ever happened, and the software then cut the retarget interval to = 1008 (triggering an immediate retarget if the counter is over 1008), the on= ly problem I see is how to measure the mean time between blocks.

In fact, has anyone examined the potential problems of reducing the reta= rget period, even to one?=C2=A0 Not Really. That quest= ion includes a suggestion of retargeting on every block, but using the same= 2016 block window for the calculation, so difficulty changes would be very= smooth, and still as unpredictable and how long till we find the next bloc= k.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36= AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 mont= hs on low subsidy would not be made=E2=80=A6
>
>
>
> Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made bas= ed on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are perfec= tly knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why inflation in B= itcoin is not a tax, it=E2=80=99s a cost. These step functions are made con= tinuous by their predictability, removing that predictability will make the= m -- unpredictable.

You know, I do agree with you.

But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that
strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change any rule currently in Bitcoin.

It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coi= n
limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt,
drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same=
UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.

If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving,
all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those=
coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to
go mine something different we have to accept that under our current
chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.


Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly
unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004d430e1daab776bc1c194589b0326924220faa00efc50cf

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




--
I like to provide some work at no charge to pr= ove my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm th= e webmaster for T= he Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante= .
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" -= Satoshi Nakamoto
--001a113d4b903769d3052d1e0737--