š
Original date posted:2011-11-23
šļø Summary of this message: Discussion on the "I got lucky and found an extremely hard block" problem in Bitcoin, and a potential solution using an upper bound on difficulty.
š Original message:On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 15:39 +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:
> On 2011 November 23 Wednesday, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>
> > Bitcoin as-is doesn't have the "I got lucky and found an extremely
> > hard block" problem because the difficulty TARGET is used to compute
> > chain difficulty, not the actual hashes found.
>
> Good points. I don't think I have a response to that one.
If there's an upper bound on the difficulty a block is accepted to have
(even if it would've passed with significantly higher difficulty), that
could solve this issue. For example, take the median (or average) of the
past 2016 blocks and don't value any new block for more than maybe 4
times as difficult as that.
> I saw the "I got lucky" result as a benefit, as it made it harder to fork the
> chain. We got an advantage from the luck.
>
> I'll have to abandon this suggestion. It's not going to work.
>
> Thanks for the feedback everyone.
Don't be so hasty with that :)
- Joel
Joel Joonatan Kaartinen [ARCHIVE] /
npub165ā¦48xrx
2023-06-07 02:41:30
in reply to nevent1qā¦q8ht
Author Public Key
npub1654pkuj4rway0043gcu6rdh4umxescp7ew42d2czqvts3kwvg3esc48xrxSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 02:41:30Event JSON
{
"id": "e5de203f3c6d057924d0171899aa9dcfd72c74d855b5b01a8e778e019425af80",
"pubkey": "d52a1b72551bba47beb14639a1b6f5e6cd98603ecbaaa6ab02031708d9cc4473",
"created_at": 1686105690,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2046d4dc725b4ce8920d2c47249dd7dad0c6e38daddd7a5e99f03e9b24dd8e66",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f2d8fb9e222f2435f6f29a3d53a4d061528e2d66b80cb9f40ef5c69f5812d1ec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2011-11-23\nšļø Summary of this message: Discussion on the \"I got lucky and found an extremely hard block\" problem in Bitcoin, and a potential solution using an upper bound on difficulty.\nš Original message:On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 15:39 +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:\n\u003e On 2011 November 23 Wednesday, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Bitcoin as-is doesn't have the \"I got lucky and found an extremely\n\u003e \u003e hard block\" problem because the difficulty TARGET is used to compute\n\u003e \u003e chain difficulty, not the actual hashes found.\n\u003e \n\u003e Good points. I don't think I have a response to that one.\n\nIf there's an upper bound on the difficulty a block is accepted to have\n(even if it would've passed with significantly higher difficulty), that\ncould solve this issue. For example, take the median (or average) of the\npast 2016 blocks and don't value any new block for more than maybe 4\ntimes as difficult as that. \n\n\u003e I saw the \"I got lucky\" result as a benefit, as it made it harder to fork the \n\u003e chain. We got an advantage from the luck.\n\u003e \n\u003e I'll have to abandon this suggestion. It's not going to work.\n\u003e \n\u003e Thanks for the feedback everyone.\n\nDon't be so hasty with that :)\n\n- Joel",
"sig": "7636a494ebd1168647ce84ac29b11142cfa42c9c9d099bce734f27c41468efee5c0423a7906b33bcea9312b1977ce5534960af865306d28044eae934834f0001"
}