đź“… Original date posted:2015-08-14
đź“ť Original message:Nobody mentioned exchange rates. Those matter to miners too.
Does it make sense for George Soros and every other rich person /
institution to have the power to move difficulty, even pin it to min or
max, just by buying or selling piles of BTC to swing the exchange rate?
On 8/14/2015 8:03 AM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> There is a proposal that relates to this, see the flexcap proposal by
> Greg Maxwell & Mark Friedenbach, it was discussed on the list back in
> May:
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008017.html
>
> and http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008038.html
>
> Adam
>
> On 14 August 2015 at 15:48, Jakob Rönnbäck
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 14 aug 2015 kl. 16:20 skrev Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au>:
>>
>> On 14 August 2015 at 11:59, Jakob Rönnbäck
>> <bitcoin-dev at 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’m not using the correct terms, I’m not
>>> a real programmer, and I’ve only recently started to subscribe to the
>>> mailing list)
>>
>> That 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?
>>
>>
>> Would that really be the case though? If it takes 5% to find a block, but it
>> contains 5% more transactions would that not mean it’s the same? That would
>> argue against the change if not for the fact that the blocks will be bigger
>> for the next difficulty period.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> I guess that could make the difficulty fluctuate a bit depending on the
>> amount of transactions and the fees being paid. Would it really matter in
>> the long run though? Since it’s the same amount of miners, doesn’t that just
>> mean it’s just the number that is lower, not the actual investment needed to
>> mine the blocks? Not sure if this would open up some forms of attacks on the
>> system for someone willing to lose money though…
>>
>>
>> Very good feedback though, thanks a lot :)
>>
>> /jakob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 15:46:58
in reply to nevent1q…vw94
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 15:46:58Event JSON
{
"id": "41d5540ab2740941c40d649a5c14fa6fcabcf27dc179beb9b1e9b76c307cbdd0",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686152818,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"81dc38ecd8f3fbf628ce50a696c0370e57553b1215f2c8077d7128c6dd957c38",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5123a441f2f19b9ede0851bebfce4ead580ec0011d675cb37d1592c4f41ab190",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"86adfa6ab3effe134323642507f0277694258be263f5ed52c2dc8f4dae18db5e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14\n📝 Original message:Nobody mentioned exchange rates. Those matter to miners too.\n\nDoes it make sense for George Soros and every other rich person /\ninstitution to have the power to move difficulty, even pin it to min or\nmax, just by buying or selling piles of BTC to swing the exchange rate?\n\n\nOn 8/14/2015 8:03 AM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e There is a proposal that relates to this, see the flexcap proposal by\n\u003e Greg Maxwell \u0026 Mark Friedenbach, it was discussed on the list back in\n\u003e May:\n\u003e\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008017.html\n\u003e\n\u003e and http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008038.html\n\u003e\n\u003e Adam\n\u003e\n\u003e On 14 August 2015 at 15:48, Jakob Rönnbäck\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e 14 aug 2015 kl. 16:20 skrev Anthony Towns \u003caj at erisian.com.au\u003e:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On 14 August 2015 at 11:59, Jakob Rönnbäck\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e What if one were to adjust the difficulty (for individual blocks)\n\u003e\u003e\u003e depending on the relative size to the average block size of the previous\n\u003e\u003e\u003e difficulty period? (I apologize if i’m not using the correct terms, I’m not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e a real programmer, and I’ve only recently started to subscribe to the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e mailing list)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e That would mean that as usage grew, blocksize could increase, but\n\u003e\u003e confirmation times would also increase (though presumably less than\n\u003e\u003e linearly). That seems like a loss?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Would that really be the case though? If it takes 5% to find a block, but it\n\u003e\u003e contains 5% more transactions would that not mean it’s the same? That would\n\u003e\u003e argue against the change if not for the fact that the blocks will be bigger\n\u003e\u003e for the next difficulty period.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If you also let the increase in confirmation time (due to miners finding\n\u003e\u003e harder blocks rather than a reduction in hashpower) then get reflected back\n\u003e\u003e as decreased difficulty, it'd probably be simpler to just dynamically adjust\n\u003e\u003e the max blocksize wouldn't it?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I guess that could make the difficulty fluctuate a bit depending on the\n\u003e\u003e amount of transactions and the fees being paid. Would it really matter in\n\u003e\u003e the long run though? Since it’s the same amount of miners, doesn’t that just\n\u003e\u003e mean it’s just the number that is lower, not the actual investment needed to\n\u003e\u003e mine the blocks? Not sure if this would open up some forms of attacks on the\n\u003e\u003e system for someone willing to lose money though…\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Very good feedback though, thanks a lot :)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e /jakob\n\u003e\u003e\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\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "2822721e2a90632283e62dda8b684560ec6845b965488efe786a013a79a08f15692beaea5b259e357940c2f42ec861b26f06efe7be88782b4e61ae5901254da5"
}