📅 Original date posted:2017-11-02
📝 Original message:The current DA is only sufficient if the coin has the highest
hashpower. It's also just really slow. If miners somehow stick with
SegWit2x despite the higher rewards in defecting back to bitcoin, then
bitcoin will have long block delays. High transaction fees will
probably help them defect back to us. But if SegWit2x manages to be
more comparable in price than BCH (despite the futures), hashpower
could very well oscillate back and forth between the two coins,
causing delays in both of them. The first one to hard fork to fix the
difficulty problem will have a large advantage, as evidenced by what
happens in alts. In any event someday BTC may not be the biggest kid
on the block and will need a difficulty algorithm that alts would find
acceptable. Few alts use anything like BTC's because they are not able
to survive the resulting long delays. I am recommending BTC
developers watch what happens as BCH goes live with a much better
algorithm, in case BTC needs to hard fork for the same reason and
needs a similar fix. Ignore the trolls.
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:39 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there an issue with the current difficulty adjustment algorithm? It's
> worked very well as far as I can tell. Introducing a new one seems pretty
> risky, what would the benefit be?
>
> On Nov 2, 2017 4:34 PM, "Scott Roberts via bitcoin-dev"
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Bitcoin cash will hard fork on Nov 13 to implement a new difficulty
>> algorithm. Bitcoin itself might need to hard fork to employ a similar
>> algorithm. It's about as good as they come because it followed the
>> "simplest is best" route. Their averaging window is probably
>> significantly too long (N=144). It's:
>>
>> next_D = sum (past 144 D's) * T / sum(past 144 solvetimes)
>>
>> They correctly did not use max(timestamp) - min(timestamp) in the
>> denominator like others do.
>>
>> They've written the code and they're about to use it live, so Bitcoin
>> will have a clear, simple, and tested path if it suddenly needs to
>> hard fork due to having 20x delays for the next 2000 blocks (taking it
>> a year to get unstuck).
>>
>> Details on it and the decision process:
>> https://www.bitcoinabc.org/november
>>
>> It uses a nice median of 3 for the beginning and end of the window to
>> help alleviate bad timestamp problems. It's nice, helps a little, but
>> will also slow its response by 1 block. They also have 2x and 1/2
>> limits on the adjustment per block, which is a lot more than they will
>> ever need.
>>
>> I recommend bitcoin consider using it and making it N=50 instead of 144.
>>
>> I have seen that any attempts to modify the above with things like a
>> low pass filter, starting the window at MTP, or preventing negative
>> timestamps will only reduce its effectiveness. Bitcoin's +12 and -6
>> limits on the timestamps are sufficient and well chosen, although
>> something a bit smaller than the +12 might have been better.
>>
>> One of the contenders to the above is new and actually better, devised
>> by Degnr8 and they call it D622 or wt-144.It's a little better than
>> they realize. It's the only real improvement in difficulty algorithms
>> since the rolling average. It gives a linearly higher weight to the
>> more recent timestamps. Otherwise it is the same. Others have probably
>> come across it, but there is too much noise in difficulty algorithms
>> to find the good ones.
>>
>> # Degnr8's D622 difficulty algorithm
>> # T=TargetTime, S=Solvetime
>> # modified by zawy
>> for i = 1 to N (from oldest to most recent block)
>> t += T[i] / D[i] * i
>> j += i
>> next i
>> next_D = j / t * T
>>
>> I believe any modification to the above strict mathematical weighted
>> average will reduce it's effectiveness. It does not oscillate anymore
>> than regular algos and rises faster and drops faster, when needed.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Scott Roberts [ARCHIVE] /
npub164…znx9p
2023-06-07 18:07:32
in reply to nevent1q…jsd3
Author Public Key
npub164d4d9z50r3uzguvlmvwdsevs5t7w6y5hjfz72wkafp0wn72nvfq5znx9pPublished at
2023-06-07 18:07:32Event JSON
{
"id": "1a8f52065ac9d79f664e68de36b8655e41c92cc76521ceccea52f5e5c0905aed",
"pubkey": "d55b56945478e3c1238cfed8e6c32c8517e76894bc922f29d6ea42f74fca9b12",
"created_at": 1686161252,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"29b18a9d3d94ae2df261451d35caed6ab5ee6f2ab3fc3f1736759599c621ef12",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5d81d7e07d4ef6a5c06ea6b04dfd59f797cb1a838bfb5e66210257b71a0df674",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"507d21660d41ec66a0e3e486a78a7369f474a388c0acebd70433bba44cd2a40d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-11-02\n📝 Original message:The current DA is only sufficient if the coin has the highest\nhashpower. It's also just really slow. If miners somehow stick with\nSegWit2x despite the higher rewards in defecting back to bitcoin, then\nbitcoin will have long block delays. High transaction fees will\nprobably help them defect back to us. But if SegWit2x manages to be\nmore comparable in price than BCH (despite the futures), hashpower\ncould very well oscillate back and forth between the two coins,\ncausing delays in both of them. The first one to hard fork to fix the\ndifficulty problem will have a large advantage, as evidenced by what\nhappens in alts. In any event someday BTC may not be the biggest kid\non the block and will need a difficulty algorithm that alts would find\nacceptable. Few alts use anything like BTC's because they are not able\nto survive the resulting long delays. I am recommending BTC\ndevelopers watch what happens as BCH goes live with a much better\nalgorithm, in case BTC needs to hard fork for the same reason and\nneeds a similar fix. Ignore the trolls.\n\nOn Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:39 PM, CryptAxe \u003ccryptaxe at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Is there an issue with the current difficulty adjustment algorithm? It's\n\u003e worked very well as far as I can tell. Introducing a new one seems pretty\n\u003e risky, what would the benefit be?\n\u003e\n\u003e On Nov 2, 2017 4:34 PM, \"Scott Roberts via bitcoin-dev\"\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin cash will hard fork on Nov 13 to implement a new difficulty\n\u003e\u003e algorithm. Bitcoin itself might need to hard fork to employ a similar\n\u003e\u003e algorithm. It's about as good as they come because it followed the\n\u003e\u003e \"simplest is best\" route. Their averaging window is probably\n\u003e\u003e significantly too long (N=144). It's:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e next_D = sum (past 144 D's) * T / sum(past 144 solvetimes)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e They correctly did not use max(timestamp) - min(timestamp) in the\n\u003e\u003e denominator like others do.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e They've written the code and they're about to use it live, so Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e will have a clear, simple, and tested path if it suddenly needs to\n\u003e\u003e hard fork due to having 20x delays for the next 2000 blocks (taking it\n\u003e\u003e a year to get unstuck).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Details on it and the decision process:\n\u003e\u003e https://www.bitcoinabc.org/november\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It uses a nice median of 3 for the beginning and end of the window to\n\u003e\u003e help alleviate bad timestamp problems. It's nice, helps a little, but\n\u003e\u003e will also slow its response by 1 block. They also have 2x and 1/2\n\u003e\u003e limits on the adjustment per block, which is a lot more than they will\n\u003e\u003e ever need.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I recommend bitcoin consider using it and making it N=50 instead of 144.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I have seen that any attempts to modify the above with things like a\n\u003e\u003e low pass filter, starting the window at MTP, or preventing negative\n\u003e\u003e timestamps will only reduce its effectiveness. Bitcoin's +12 and -6\n\u003e\u003e limits on the timestamps are sufficient and well chosen, although\n\u003e\u003e something a bit smaller than the +12 might have been better.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e One of the contenders to the above is new and actually better, devised\n\u003e\u003e by Degnr8 and they call it D622 or wt-144.It's a little better than\n\u003e\u003e they realize. It's the only real improvement in difficulty algorithms\n\u003e\u003e since the rolling average. It gives a linearly higher weight to the\n\u003e\u003e more recent timestamps. Otherwise it is the same. Others have probably\n\u003e\u003e come across it, but there is too much noise in difficulty algorithms\n\u003e\u003e to find the good ones.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e # Degnr8's D622 difficulty algorithm\n\u003e\u003e # T=TargetTime, S=Solvetime\n\u003e\u003e # modified by zawy\n\u003e\u003e for i = 1 to N (from oldest to most recent block)\n\u003e\u003e t += T[i] / D[i] * i\n\u003e\u003e j += i\n\u003e\u003e next i\n\u003e\u003e next_D = j / t * T\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I believe any modification to the above strict mathematical weighted\n\u003e\u003e average will reduce it's effectiveness. It does not oscillate anymore\n\u003e\u003e than regular algos and rises faster and drops faster, when needed.\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "4d84348c0870f442acb8ebf48d303219336df433a637371d2ac6368ec4d20b77a01bb1910255d18b7b4e9dbd4592bd1e95dcc5584eaccf95e65571d11194b9d4"
}