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 0541AEAF for ; 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 ; 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 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Matt Corallo 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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