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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <rebroad@gmail.com>) id 1SRl0O-00021x-Ow
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 08 May 2012 14:03:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=rebroad@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SRl0L-0000Mj-1d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 08 May 2012 14:03:08 +0000
Received: by wibhj19 with SMTP id hj19so605596wib.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 08 May 2012 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.105.194 with SMTP id go2mr45049778wib.22.1336485778754;
Tue, 08 May 2012 07:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rebroad@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.6.18 with HTTP; Tue, 8 May 2012 07:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 15:02:58 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: on8YFCGTkEW66E2K_Cog4ZjP5jk
Message-ID: <CAFBxzABj90QLxsO6aywzPvFmV=Pk91hiDCXc5-xk-3B9ePEVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rebroad (sourceforge)" <rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04182582170c9604bf86d852
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(rebroad[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1SRl0L-0000Mj-1d
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] block difficulty - inherently stable or
inherently unstable?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 14:03:08 -0000
--f46d04182582170c9604bf86d852
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I was just thinking about the way block difficulty is calculated, and how
people may (in future) decide whether to mine or not.
Is it possible that when the difficulty is low, many will decide to mine,
producing blocks every 3 or 5 minutes, and then in 1 week, bitcoin will
increase the difficulty, and many will decide it is no longer cost
effective, stop mining, and find blocks are being produced every 30 minutes
for the next 6 weeks, before the returning to a previous difficulty where
people decide to mine again, etc, etc.
Seems reasonably possible in my mind, and I'm wondering if the stability so
far has been purely due to people mining without thinking too much about
the immediate cost-effectiveness (or mining by zombie-farms).
Thoughts, anyone?
Ed
--f46d04182582170c9604bf86d852
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was just thinking about the way block difficulty is calculated, and how p=
eople may (in future) decide whether to mine or not.<div><br></div><div>Is =
it possible that when the difficulty is low, many will decide to mine, prod=
ucing blocks every 3 or 5 minutes, and then in 1 week, bitcoin will increas=
e the difficulty, and many will decide it is no longer cost effective, stop=
mining, and find blocks are being produced every 30 minutes for the next 6=
weeks, before the returning to a previous difficulty where people decide t=
o mine again, etc, etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Seems reasonably possible in my mind, and I'm wonde=
ring if the stability so far has been purely due to people mining without t=
hinking too much about the immediate cost-effectiveness (or mining by zombi=
e-farms).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thoughts, anyone?</div><div><br></div><div>Ed</div>
--f46d04182582170c9604bf86d852--
|
