> 14 aug 2015 kl. 16:20 skrev Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au
> <mailto:a...@erisian.com.au>>:
>
> On 14 August 2015 at 11:59, Jakob Rönnbäck
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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
