Rick Wesson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-08-24 🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on ...

📅 Original date posted:2011-08-24
🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on the Bitcoin-development mailing list about potential changes to the Bitcoin protocol, including dynamically adapting block size and adjusting difficulty every block.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
> > - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something that
> can
> > dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it can't
> be
> > gamed?
>
> Too early for that.
>
>
Could you provide a reference to why in your estimation it is "to early."
Simpy stating this as fact isn't enough to sway demand.

> - Adjust difficulty every block, without limits, based on a N-block
> sliding
> > window. I think this would solve the issue when the hashrate drops
> > overnight, but maybe also add a block time limit, or perhaps include the
> > "current block" in the difficulty calculation?
>
> The quantized scheme limits the amount of difficulty skew miners can
> create by lying about timestamps to about a half a percent. A rolling
> window with the same time constant would allow much more skew.
>
> > Replacing the "Satoshi" 64-bit integers with
> > "Satoshi" variable-size fractions (ie, infinite numerator + denominator)
>
> Increasing precision I would agree with but, sadly, causing people to
> need more than 64 bit would create a lot of bugs.
>
>
how about we agree that increasing precision is a goal and worry about how
to encode that once its on the road map.



> infinite numerator + denominator is absolutely completely and totally
> batshit insane. For one, it has weird consequences that the same value
> can have redundant encodings.
>
> Most importantly, it suffers factor inflation: If you spend inputs
> 1/977 1/983 1/991 1/997 the smallest denominator you can use for the
> output 948892238557.
>
> Not to mention that the idiots writing financial software can only
> barely manage to not use radix-2 floating point on everything. Asking
> them to use arbitrary rational numbers with mixed radix will never
> fly.
>
> > - Remove the 100 confirmation requirement for spending generated coins.
> If
> > they are respent before 100 confirmations, clients can/should flag the
> new
> > outputs as also "generated" or "recently generated" so recipients are
> aware
> > of the risk.
>
> Please lets not make bitcoin _less_ trustworthy.
>
> The 100 block maturity on generated coins is good. The generation from
> an orphaning is lost forever like the losing side of a double spend,
> but far far worse... because orphaning happens all the time on its own
> without any malice.
>
> I agree it's obnoxious that you can't pad your generation payouts
> without creating more transactions, but I don't see a solution for
> that. Repeat the addresses... make up for it by increasing your payout
> threshold.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K
> The only unified storage solution that offers unified management
> Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient.
> Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110824/995254b5/attachment.html>;