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 99668CA6 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:43:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com (mail-qk0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13A681BC for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x1so25764894qkc.1 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:43:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TmKmkBUex/qPA9UXll9PTDiFZ9XkuOMtVlBJRBTRwxM=; b=vVIPJDs2z9h03zTwyTxswbPP3EQ9KU+vlCdSemYACpGuC9IZaGsQK02XINc3pkYBT4 RmLUrQYCqvXgMsgh3geJGLFlkeKFyBpf2i9SBsFjYei0WaCx3QaoOdrH3nWI0w+WwyIK VSiaBRK1MVrCyqTp+5tvnhTEP/46pjY1qQC2QHIV/RCN/B7twyNbUMLhj/jHcNOZsI1G etHimOJ76Ix0QetrygUkllmbZk4BStY6SgZdPZv2A6F0L1oAPxBHh56joR02zqK7aurc XoimZCVHkxfcT9O79Pq4OPGYaZvO6j6bm2ud2XgZWtOfkEfUfKbVa/LmV/8h8Onkd9Yi aGOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TmKmkBUex/qPA9UXll9PTDiFZ9XkuOMtVlBJRBTRwxM=; b=OC/NVGC+le/WuXzxUHjr09Ebqq5PWTEExroB1wRWVsWgW3bB+VkSx/cJL5QH7qc1oS bdtS1Wv3hWNNukiLThZKan2qv2gNUvw5i8Q1+8SfafddYqSy2NiPK6xa9j5kcfyzpg+0 wd49fca+f2fSKVeJOyuluknagUo/pXzhR9LfHwm9IMddpmrBUR6XAMuFS3AyusV2mctr yUOgSxuzMrrg/oujvTyGRSSCSSqXCJX1hft49Nya55OMPY9qwe37at82cTUyoy69tI1p FswhkqatZsS224JIOddl3M/z7ETAAQ8Ex5eqCG9YIQYRbKWxpbUX5oXtVs90giqYeL2V Ddzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLbXhnE8xBcJkZ74CoaqMPuqidBn6UN97r6TljyHA3zeXj3w3j3NQxM2k75AZ9r+Q== X-Received: by 10.55.212.1 with SMTP id l1mr257666qki.93.1457556203244; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (ool-4575fa8d.dyn.optonline.net. [69.117.250.141]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm184225qhs.21.2016.03.09.12.43.22 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:43:22 -0800 (PST) References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org> <20160304084101.GA2352@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Paul Sztorc Message-ID: <56E08ADC.30403@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:43:08 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_RED 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, 09 Mar 2016 20:45:17 +0000 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, 09 Mar 2016 20:43:24 -0000 On 3/9/2016 3:18 PM, Henning Kopp via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi, > > > However, I think it could actually increase > > confidence in the system if the community is able to demonstrate a go= od > > process for making such decisions, and show that we can separate the > > meaningful underlying principles, such as the coin limit and overall > > inflation rate, from what is more akin to an implementation detail, a= s I > > consider the large-step reward reduction to be. > > I do not think that a line can be drawn here. As far as I understood, > you think that the coin limit is a meaningful underlying principle > which should not be touched, whereas the halving of mining rewards is > an implementation detail. The two are very closely tied together and > changes to both of them would result in a hardfork, if I am not > mistaken. I believe that you are mistaken. The two are almost-completely unrelated, and (as Dr. Back has been pointing out for a very long time now) the halving of mining rewards can be modified with a soft fork. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/mining-heart-attack/#smooth-the-disinflati= on-out