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 4BDA8BDE for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:03:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149055.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149055.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.149.55]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D429125 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u22N3ZxP052534 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:03:35 GMT Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u22N3Wsn061205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:03:33 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E138400FD for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Resent-From: Peter Todd Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:03:30 -0500 Resent-Message-ID: <20160302230330.GB888@muck> Resent-To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:02:13 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Eric Voskuil Message-ID: <20160302230213.GA888@muck> References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org> <201603021542.29609.luke@dashjr.org> <56D71488.4080607@gmail.com> <00e101d174b5$f2659060$d730b120$@voskuil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jRHKVT23PllUwdXP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00e101d174b5$f2659060$d730b120$@voskuil.org> X-Server-Quench: fd182198-e0ca-11e5-829e-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVJwpGK10IU0Fd P1hyKltILEZaQVBf Ri5dBBEKBAw1ADwr dVUTOktdYFUzDkd1 UkhIREJQFw9oAhYC BVAbUAd3aQROfWBx Z0Z9XHVEXQo/d0QD QSkXS20AZGVgbS4c V0FcOVUAcQtIfxZN dwV/ByIQYGRSY2do RV4+emhpZGgGd3UI TlxQc0QoTBRDLTQ9 WxsFHDNqEUAbcm0T JgYqJFkGHw4NNQ08 MEtpVVMWPR4ZFwlC DglBGihBb1AFSC0x DB9aWCYA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:11:29 +0000 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 23:03:37 -0000 --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on = low subsidy would not be made=E2=80=A6 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based = on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are perfectly= knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why inflation in Bitc= oin is not a tax, it=E2=80=99s a cost. These step functions are made contin= uous by their predictability, removing that predictability will make them -= - unpredictable. You know, I do agree with you. But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change any rule currently in Bitcoin. It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt, drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution. If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving, all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to go mine something different we have to accept that under our current chosen rules confirmations might take a long time. Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000004d430e1daab776bc1c194589b0326924220faa00efc50cf --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJW13DyXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwNGQ0MzBlMWRhYWI3NzZiYzFjMTk0NTg5YjAzMjY5MjQy MjBmYWEwMGVmYzUwY2YvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udwpGwf+Mrjt/qfcW8KVZvhxEUitlWMI UdwxUrN4gQv4w5/jFgAZ18gE9DDvg+h1XXwI1DB0PfNvXq8jVoSMvclrTQXJ2WIs POmzeUy0eD+BwmvtxvYwvrs8H9FCZttixFm+Vq/0bJK/DrmT+rV903whSE7tqJZ9 MKxcGz5ySQJf0G8MYKNoH4BZsclbgA6w6edNMtXJD1PzYbsl+tucVSaTHykLczZ0 voUoY4Q/ilgLNtKSalO6opNDNwzKWjwN+cSUZCp48h7kpleuPWdvX5Q4gtJh+g5Q 1Bta/xXNOOBqc77cV6c1sx9sAtUq5Jv0NbPadsI2CoD3SxqxT1qR71pqmk9vog== =evon -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP--