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 AD834C95 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:16:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:10:49 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mcelrath.org (moya.mcelrath.org [50.31.3.130]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD1CEEE for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mcelrath.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id u28M575e023769 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:05:07 GMT Received: (from mcelrath@localhost) by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id u28M57B8023768; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:05:07 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: mcelrath.org: mcelrath set sender to bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org using -f Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:05:07 +0000 From: Bob McElrath To: Dave Hudson Message-ID: <20160308220507.GA4388@mcelrath.org> References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org> <5E6E8EFD-2BC0-47F6-8005-5A63821C4276@hashingit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5E6E8EFD-2BC0-47F6-8005-5A63821C4276@hashingit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 08 Mar 2016 22:54:03 +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: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:16:24 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:16:24 -0000 Dave Hudson via bitcoin-dev [bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] wrote: > I think the biggest question here would be how would the difficulty > retargeting be changed? Without seeing the algorithm proposal it's difficult > to assess the impact that it would have, but my intuition is that this is > likely to be problematic. I have no comment on whether this will be *needed* but there's a simple algorithm that I haven't seen any coin adopt, that I think needs to be: the critically damped harmonic oscillator: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CriticallyDampedSimpleHarmonicMotion.html In dynamical systems one does a derivative expansion. Here we want to find the first and second derivatives (in time) of the hashrate. These can be determined by a method of finite differences, or fancier algorithms which use a quadratic or quartic polynomial approximation. Two derivatives are generally all that is needed, and the resulting dynamical system is a damped harmonic oscillator. A damped harmonic oscillator is basically how your car's shock absorbers work. The relevant differential equation has two parameters: the oscillation frequency and damping factor. The maximum oscillation frequency is the block rate. Any oscillation faster than the block rate cannot be measured by block times. The damping rate is an exponential decay and for critical damping is twice the oscillation frequency. So, this is a zero parameter, optimal damping solution for a varying hashrate. This is inherently a numeric approximation solution to a differential equation, so questions of approximations for the hashrate enter, but that's all. Weak block proposals will be able to get better approximations to the hashrate. If solving this problem is deemed desirable, I can put some time into this, or direct others as to how to go about it. -- Cheers, Bob McElrath "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken