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 0DD87110C for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:57:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F27A2C5 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:57:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id e1so12348314ita.0 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:57:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=DdUKxBQVufbzuwTcKZyx7sXxctR5cILcmvY3dAcmBIE=; b=dBE9wNYBHRb7+1nBR4dE5VKod1sPg2rXp4yIC6aPEr2lIf4dUpCium6a0opVO0dYdo wHuzcTLV+QQF6qAmsGOqveGy83JJzYueXKu2vU4Ly4qsbPEAP+uJXKJtuTawuGIKm9/7 E8NqvWU2HvnJd0XJuuV1trJdYJ0aS+194zAtlQUiwvsgo1JOw0iDpfF/pwNORI76vuQI bSO0UAPqDHW7aiQK32OEdrNZ5BrrGYjTA28cmHfy1iKIztm11ynC2FHptvhgBEebem0E +8B3VBuVwCvAZ+gnp1/I2wAhlM+HbYiNxVO+AlFIlI6u9FF5F1p0Z7Un83CmHklzba2k E05Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=DdUKxBQVufbzuwTcKZyx7sXxctR5cILcmvY3dAcmBIE=; b=YWNBiz4Tv3htO2PDMWb+YoJEFyQe8mKLDhjl/EOy6R0KwxllLRNhMzRbWyop1WA/A+ FX1m8h5QwZBoKpgQg4+U0xDSnNeAZeXshC7Gv8dSgzzqhTZ+oH9bLowKBrUF2mS1wg5i 1IGwOzYTCjTzpmpJXwl0v0rysj8B2tPOGaEenaAe/dTirTZLyqEE4+ov7bT32+MLEGXC /uZyQCxR8YB+9MzQ/QX4D6cUhy6Nf8aM2dJLbRsRxMKDVW11duwwdPd1+QhXUJinvN1N YUWYtungLJrPCgajc2TekDTPnmLMq66hNR9KcvejS+i1XVY6+NaSl7V+QSBhmoUUWkRI Vl8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfHvml94xMfdRtyEo+5RFyZ415sxyurnFdfA9DaaSvw4oHgVswb /SunygL5mOLHrXYI3i57xvoEmIeM X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224WINyIq0vLAqTSeceup3+x7SZcGTD2FveFJGbyqNFSf7lGcTN2/mFPoBX6FHdbpx3A6Qpzyw== X-Received: by 10.36.6.139 with SMTP id 133mr1982816itv.92.1516683467413; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:57:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:1165:1dd7:7075:bf2e? ([2601:600:a080:16bb:1165:1dd7:7075:bf2e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w66sm1234316ith.31.2018.01.22.20.57.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:57:46 -0800 (PST) To: Chaofan Li , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Eric Voskuil Message-ID: <16b2ea77-3ff5-81b1-d3d7-a7107f4b37fc@voskuil.org> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:57:46 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ecooU1JSwilxF557aodYRDJPeVBmaa658" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:22:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain Voluntary Fork (Split) Proposal (Chaofan Li) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:57:49 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ecooU1JSwilxF557aodYRDJPeVBmaa658 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="6Zml1H6L3nVMwyZWC7I2tVQ5cS86TRRp7"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eric Voskuil To: Chaofan Li , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <16b2ea77-3ff5-81b1-d3d7-a7107f4b37fc@voskuil.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain Voluntary Fork (Split) Proposal (Chaofan Li) References: In-Reply-To: --6Zml1H6L3nVMwyZWC7I2tVQ5cS86TRRp7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/22/2018 04:38 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Miners are most likely to be=C2=A0 equally distributed between the two = almost > same chains. This is irrelevant as miners don't determine the utility of a money, they anticipate it. However you don't have to accept this to recognize the error of the argument below... > If one chain is faster, according to the difficulty adjustment scheme, > it will become more difficult to mine. Mining difficulty controls the block period, not miner return on capital.= > The two chain should have similar chain generation rates with similar > difficulty and similar length. This is the consequence of the presumed common regulation of the block period. It matters not how useful are either of the monies. > or the miners will be attracted to the chain easier to mine,=C2=A0 > and more miners will make the chain generation rate increase and then, > after difficulty adjustment, harder to mine. You are conflating difficulty with profitability. These are not the same thing. A chain can be more difficult and less profitable and the reverse. Profitability is controlled by competition, as it is in all markets. Competition is controlled by the cost of capital, which is in turn controlled by time preference. Mining seeks the same level of profitability for any coin, regardless of how difficultly. This applies to all industry - difficulty does not regulate profit, it's just a cost. > Equilibrium will be achieved.> All the above are based on one assumptio= n: the two chains have the same > value initially or miners believe they will=C2=A0 have=C2=A0 the same v= alue finally. Actually the opposite is the case. Even if we could start at a point of perfect equality, the smallest change in the number of merchants or human perception of the money (as examples), would lead one to be slightly better. All things being equal that alone would lead to elimination of one money in favor of the other. One money is inherently better than two, as there is an exchange cost between them. In the absence of exchange controls the better money gets used, and in this case that can simply be the result of a slightly larger network (or perception of it). e --6Zml1H6L3nVMwyZWC7I2tVQ5cS86TRRp7-- --ecooU1JSwilxF557aodYRDJPeVBmaa658 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJaZsDKAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOxvkIAJo++EMlxl6Y2SB+7MsvX/3g lWJyJQ/UcSpQYswGwhAlH5B+e7XvPfMSK4YQQQihWwUqWefiC0eHVv4stMFWejRr PwWSbl7BjyNcSxeElZ7zRitCyKfV3CZscgdiclNndolamlu3Up0nx+pwo2H3yAgm BHW+mGipNf5XceMOBFE3Kowv5dcaatmoRRp4ewSXLJearfz5EUb+EOAW4V+h7EE9 83piTcEmoIe+CRTuo3fR+KBscu/feIkBpB3RrE17lLGmVauNDpBb1Jk6hNsXq1pE nTI8eyYgyE1TX2UI3OopssLU2vxVth2VpcPhF2vh/7BNp/ECbTbga3Im3mYuJYU= =PNTV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ecooU1JSwilxF557aodYRDJPeVBmaa658--