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 88B01D05 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:56 +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 2FBB413B for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:56 +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 8EDAE38A2C99; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160302:Pavel@janik.cz::kM4eRrqncFgJglpl:1wot X-Hashcash: 1:25:160302:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::W44e7tUL1EXOMMQR:bhRQa From: Luke Dashjr To: Pavel =?utf-8?q?Jan=C3=ADk?= Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:14:35 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201603021514.36769.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 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: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm 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: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:14:56 -0000 On Wednesday, March 02, 2016 3:05:08 PM Pavel Jan=C3=ADk wrote: > > the network. This would result in a significantly longer block interval, > > which also means a higher per-block transaction volume, which could > > cause the block size limit to legitimately be hit much sooner than > > expected. >=20 > If this happens at all (the exchange rate of the coin can accomodate such > expectation), The exchange rate is not significantly influenced by these things.=20 Historically, it seems fairly obvious that the difficulty has followed valu= e,=20 not value following difficulty. > the local fee market will develop, fees will raise and complement mined > coins, thus bringing more miners back to the game (together with expected > higher exchange rate). Depends on the hashrate drop, and tolerance for higher fees, both of which = are=20 largely unknown at this time. At least having code prepared for the negativ= e=20 scenarios in case of an emergency seems reasonable, even if we don't end up= =20 needing to deploy it. Luke