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@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> 14 aug 2015 kl. 16:20 skrev Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au>: >> >> On 14 August 2015 at 11:59, Jakob Rönnbäck >> <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’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@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
