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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0541AEAF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:11:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2388167
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:11:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F98238A916A;
Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:10:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160209:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::iZCmTA06mSqfzVWu:aRBwk
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160209:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com::H4mtnX39bX4/X+BD:aUqjE
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160209:aj@erisian.com.au::H3Jfx4BcDlORpFsD:5+9K
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:10:43 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <56B8EBF8.4050602@mattcorallo.com>
<56BA5FF9.6090905@mattcorallo.com>
<56BA618C.4010301@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <56BA618C.4010301@mattcorallo.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602092210.45265.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On Hardforks in the Context of SegWit
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:11:24 -0000
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 10:00:44 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Indeed, we could push for more place by just always having one 0-byte,
> but I'm not sure the added complexity helps anything? ASICs can never be
> designed which use more extra-nonce-space than what they can reasonably
> assume will always be available, so we might as well just set the
> maximum number of bytes and let ASIC designers know exactly what they
> have available. Currently blocks start with at least 8 0-bytes. We could
> just say minimum difficulty is now 6 0-bytes (2**16x harder) and reserve
> those?
The extranonce rolling doesn't necessarily need to happen in the ASIC itself.
With the current extranonce-in-gentx, an old RasPi 1 can only handle creating
work for up to 5 Gh/s with a 500k gentx.
Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between ASIC speeds and difficulty,
so increasing the extranonce space dynamically makes a lot of sense.
I don't see any reason *not* to increase the minimum difficulty at the same
time, though.
Luke
|
