{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-03-02\n📝 Original message:We are coming up on the subsidy halving this July, and there have been some \nconcerns raised that a non-trivial number of miners could potentially drop off \nthe network. This would result in a significantly longer block interval, which \nalso means a higher per-block transaction volume, which could cause the block \nsize limit to legitimately be hit much sooner than expected. Furthermore, due \nto difficulty adjustment being measured exclusively in blocks, the time until \nit adjusts to compensate would be prolonged.\n\nFor example, if 50% of miners dropped off the network, blocks would be every \n20 minutes on average and contain double the transactions they presently do. \nEven double would be approximately 850-900k, which potentially bumps up \nagainst the hard limit when empty blocks are taken into consideration. This \nsituation would continue for a full month if no changes are made. If more \nminers drop off the network, most of this becomes linearly worse, but due to \nhitting the block size limit, the backlog would grow indefinitely until the \nadjustment occurs.\n\nTo alleviate this risk, it seems reasonable to propose a hardfork to the \ndifficulty adjustment algorithm so it can adapt quicker to such a significant \ndrop in mining rate. BtcDrak tells me he has well-tested code for this in his \naltcoin, which has seen some roller-coaster hashrates, so it may even be \npossible to have such a proposal ready in time to be deployed alongside SegWit \nto take effect in time for the upcoming subsidy halving. If this slips, I \nthink it may be reasonable to push for at least code-readiness before July, \nand possibly roll it into any other hardfork proposed before or around that \ntime.\n\nI am unaware of any reason this would be controversial, so if anyone has a \nproblem with such a change, please speak up sooner rather than later. Other \nideas or concerns are of course welcome as well.\n\nThanks,\n\nLuke"}