From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C544826 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:00:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 01:00:15 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from st11p02im-asmtp001.me.com (st11p02im-asmtp001.me.com [17.172.220.113]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF6F1AB for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.1.60] (h-29-43.a159.priv.bahnhof.se [79.136.29.43]) by st11p02im-asmtp001.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.35.0 64bit (built Mar 31 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0NT200JCIH39HK10@st11p02im-asmtp001.me.com> for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:59:36 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2015-08-14_03:2015-08-13, 2015-08-14, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1412110000 definitions=main-1508140143 From: =?utf-8?Q?Jakob_R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck?= Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:59:32 +0200 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:00:01 -0000 Greetings, a thought occurred to me that I would love to hear what some bitcoin = experts think about. 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=E2=80=99m not using the correct = terms, I=E2=80=99m not a real programmer, and I=E2=80=99ve only recently = started to subscribe to the mailing list) In practice: 1. calculate average block size for the previous difficulty period (is = it 2016-blocks?) 2. when trying to find a new block adjust the difficulty by adding the = relative size difference. For instance, if i=E2=80=99m trying to create = a block half (or double) the size of the average block size for the = previous difficulty period then my difficulty will be 2x the normal = one=E2=80=A6 if I=E2=80=99m trying to make one that is 30% bigger (or = smaller) then the difficulty is 1.3 times the normal one Right now this would force miners to make blocks as close to 1mb as = possible (since the block reward >> fees). But unless I=E2=80=99m = mistaken sometime in the future the block size should be adjusted to = maximize the fees=E2=80=A6 Could the concept be useful somehow? I apologize if it=E2=80=99s been discussed before or if it=E2=80=99s a = stupid idea, I would have run it by some other people, but I=E2=80=99m = afraid I don=E2=80=99t know anyone that have any interest in bitcoin. Regards /jakob=