{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub15wz8j5cse6sexlw6f5q7arc5efe5hxn6kcxxyy222et8qms4u3lsemaru8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub15wz8j5cse6sexlw6f5q7arc5efe5hxn6kcxxyy222et8qms4u3lsemaru8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-03-03\n📝 Original message:It makes sense to me that there might be objective conditions under which\nwe would want to use a number smaller than 2016.  A good example would be a\nmean time between blocks of more than 20 minutes over the last 144 blocks\n(one  - two days).  If such an occurrence ever happened, and the software\nthen cut the retarget interval to 1008 (triggering an immediate retarget if\nthe counter is over 1008), the only problem I see is how to measure the\nmean time between blocks.\n\nIn fact, has anyone examined the potential problems of reducing the\nretarget period, even to one?  Not Really.\n\u003chttp://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9305/why-not-retarget-on-every-block\u003e\nThat question includes a suggestion of retargeting on every block, but\nusing the same 2016 block window for the calculation, so difficulty changes\nwould be very smooth, and still as unpredictable and how long till we find\nthe next block.\n\nOn Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on\n\u003e low subsidy would not be made…\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based\n\u003e on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are perfectly\n\u003e knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why inflation in\n\u003e Bitcoin is not a tax, it’s a cost. These step functions are made continuous\n\u003e by their predictability, removing that predictability will make them --\n\u003e unpredictable.\n\u003e\n\u003e You know, I do agree with you.\n\u003e\n\u003e But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that\n\u003e strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change\n\u003e any rule currently in Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin\n\u003e limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt,\n\u003e drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same\n\u003e UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.\n\u003e\n\u003e If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving,\n\u003e all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those\n\u003e coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to\n\u003e go mine something different we have to accept that under our current\n\u003e chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly\n\u003e unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e 000000000000000004d430e1daab776bc1c194589b0326924220faa00efc50cf\n\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\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nI like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a\ntechie?\nI own Litmocracy \u003chttp://www.litmocracy.com\u003e and Meme Racing\n\u003chttp://www.memeracing.net\u003e (in alpha).\nI'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist \u003chttp://www.voluntaryist.com\u003e which\nnow accepts Bitcoin.\nI also code for The Dollar Vigilante \u003chttp://dollarvigilante.com/\u003e.\n\"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules\" - Satoshi\nNakamoto\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160302/c1a8954e/attachment.html\u003e"}