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 4A36987A for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:20:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACFEE89 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so22360501wic.1 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=a634eFzI972TeRmg23+HAzb/EhcSuEOzJxbEnVXsdY8=; b=AESaNyz7sKE6uyEf1JjHMJTBglWiCpvZ89f75oxXI/aMTAIcyFXQgIdJd3+VWBECBz sUyFuRB6yShXUgIP0rCSt2AeR4DyVqWYgNS3LL435Jpbh1SNlZT7k22K+HwqOcXcjjl6 YJ/M50vuOIFgtzmoWpZVHgBalf1Ro9zvJNf0zvuSUnRtY5CNGDMXSdvE/4cb19T0PX6F ldEkRUwHxUwn7JOVoyn2xY9Cz9pmT7wOQINEJk+l7oWSV47TiM9+6mMLEwnA5cZcNHz7 vA9N6FKa7wIwDPdvHglTUIkPbdG4mlc3hF57g2TUH+1EXjh05KS79IGW9bro4xlWBynJ aNzg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.122.97 with SMTP id lr1mr323602wjb.26.1439562035167; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: anthony.j.towns@gmail.com Received: by 10.28.176.69 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com> References: <09C8843E-8379-404D-8357-05BDB1F749C1@me.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:20:35 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BKhlfD7f9AG2Fet2mRfKVPRCdV4 Message-ID: From: Anthony Towns To: =?UTF-8?B?SmFrb2IgUsO2bm5iw6Rjaw==?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228c70bd0a4c051d46271b X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Adjusted difficulty depending on relative blocksize 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: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:20:37 -0000 --089e01228c70bd0a4c051d46271b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 14 August 2015 at 11:59, Jakob R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > What if one were to adjust the difficulty (for individual blocks) > depending on the relative size to the average block size of the previous > difficulty period? (I apologize if i=E2=80=99m not using the correct term= s, I=E2=80=99m not > a real programmer, and I=E2=80=99ve only recently started to subscribe to= the > mailing list) > =E2=80=8BThat would mean that as usage grew, blocksize could increase, but confirmation times would also increase (though presumably less than linearly). That seems like a loss? If you also let the increase in confirmation time (due to miners finding harder blocks rather than a reduction in hashpower) then get reflected back as decreased difficulty, it'd probably be simpler to just dynamically adjust the max blocksize wouldn't it? Cheers, aj=E2=80=8B --=20 Anthony Towns --089e01228c70bd0a4c051d46271b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 14 August 2015 at 11:59,= Jakob R=C3=B6nnb=C3=A4ck <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
= What if one were to adjust the difficulty (for individual blocks) depending= on the relative size to the average block size of the previous difficulty = period? (I apologize if i=E2=80=99m not using the correct terms, I=E2=80=99= m not a real programmer, and I=E2=80=99ve only recently started to subscrib= e to the mailing list)

=E2=80=8BThat would mean that = as usage grew, blocksize could increase, but confirmation times would also = increase (though presumably less than linearly). That seems like a loss?

<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:monospace">If you also let= the increase in confirmation time (due to miners finding harder blocks rat= her than a reduction in hashpower) then get reflected back as decreased dif= ficulty, it'd probably be simpler to just dynamically adjust the max bl= ocksize wouldn't it?

Cheers,
aj=E2=80=8B

--
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
--089e01228c70bd0a4c051d46271b--