Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-09 📝 Original message:Well let's see. All else ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-09
📝 Original message:Well let's see. All else being equal, if everybody uses difficulty to
buy big blocks during retarget interval 0, blocks and therefore money
issuance is slower during that interval. Then, the retargeting causes
it to be faster during interval 1. Subsidy got shifted from the
calendar period corresponding to interval 0, to interval 1.

If you change the reward, you can lower the time-frame of the effect to
the order of a single block interval, but there is still an effect.

These schemes do not avoid the need for a hard cap, and there are new
rules for the size of the allowed adjustment, in addition to the main
rule relating difficulty to block size. So it seems they generally have
more complexity than the other blocksize schemes being considered.


On 9/9/2015 11:59 AM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Does it really change the schedule when the next difficulty retarget
> readjusts to an average of 10 minutes again?
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>
> There is another concern regarding "flexcap" that was not discussed.
>
> A change to difficulty in response to anything BUT observed block
> production rate unavoidably changes the money supply schedule, unless
> you also change the reward, and in that case you've still changed the
> timing even if not the average rate.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150909/6df72c5a/attachment.html>;