From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R3yT4-0005ua-D7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:02:10 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1R3yT3-0001Zh-J2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:02:10 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F138B204027; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:02:03 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:01:54 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201109141901.57286.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1R3yT3-0001Zh-J2 Cc: kjj Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Difficulty adjustment / time issues X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:02:10 -0000 On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:09:00 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Though I generally agree with Luke that we should just fix the root > cause even though it forks the chain. I don't support this, unless all other chain-forking-needed changes are mad= e=20 at the same time. I do point out that changing the time rules *does not hel= p*. > Not for his reasons (I don't give a crap about the burden on _one_ pool > operator=E2=80=94 the rest cope with bitcoind scaling fine without excess= ive > dependance on ntime rolling), The rest don't generate rewards immediately as the same block being mined.= =20 They either eat the loss of invalid blocks, or wait for 100+ confirmations= =20 before paying. Also, restricting the time rules basically breaks miners=20 without rollntime support (such as Phoenix).