Published on: 2017-10-12T08:51:33+00:00
In the provided context, it is mentioned that the author made a post and received no arguments against it. As a result, they decided to work on a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP). The specific details of the original post or the content of the BIP are not provided. An HTML file is attached, but its contents remain unknown.The main issue discussed is the difficulty adjustment algorithm in Bitcoin. It is stated that this algorithm creates a problem where hashpower does not align with user interests. While changing the algorithm may improve functionality, it does not address the underlying problem. If this incentive problem remains unsolved and Bitcoin faces a hashpower attack, the project could fail. However, developers can publish a contingency plan, such as an emergency hard fork to a different retarget algorithm, to mitigate this risk. This hard fork would require broad consensus and could signal to miners that the legacy chain will react and survive. Although an emergency hard fork carries risks, it may be worth considering depending on the scenario in November.A proposal suggesting the deployment of a hard fork to Bitcoin in the event of a 51% attack is deemed unhelpful. This would create two altcoins competing for hashpower instead of one. The main issue of hashpower not aligning with users' interests would still persist. The value proposition of Bitcoin is based on economic incentives creating a secure trustless ledger, and if these incentives fail, the experiment fails. Rushed and poorly reviewed hard forks like B2X should not be repeated, and future hard forks should undergo thorough expert and community review. The proposed solution to the miner's profit-seeking behavior without considering security, users, and nodes is a hard fork with a new difficulty algorithm. This algorithm uses a simple rolling average with a smaller window and adjusts the reward based on recent solvetimes to encourage more mining or slow it down if necessary. However, this proposal requires peer review before implementation.The writer explains that there is a practical limit to the number of blocks that can be orphaned even under a 51% attack. The value of tokens solely on the 2X chain would not be as high as those on the Core chain, incentivizing miners to acquire tokens on the Core chain. In hardfork situations, hodlers have more power than miners due to economic disincentives for mining on the 2X chain. Switching to Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is also unattractive as its value is lower than BT2 tokens. Changing difficulty algorithms can have negative effects on chain security. Instead, it is suggested to let the market determine the fate of 2X without responding with a hard fork. Changes like difficulty adjustment, proof-of-work change, or block size should not be made in response to a contentious hard fork. If the Core chain fails, then Bitcoin as a whole has failed, and hodlers are advised to sell their holdings and find other sources of amusement.In an email exchange on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, Scott Roberts proposed a new difficulty algorithm to address issues related to miners prioritizing maximum profit over security, users, and nodes. The proposal suggests a hard fork to implement a new difficulty algorithm using a simple rolling average with a smaller window. The reward would be adjusted based on recent solvetimes to encourage or slow down mining accordingly. However, Mark Friedenbach disagrees with creating a contingency plan for the incumbent chain under a 51% attack, considering it rushed and hypocritical. He suggests reframing the proposal as a hardfork wishlist research problem for a properly planned hard fork in the future. The email recommends discussing this topic in the hardfork research group for better accommodation.The bitcoin difficulty algorithm is highlighted as a problem that could lead to the minority chain becoming the "better" coin. Hard forks should not be rushed and require extensive expert and community review. The hardfork research group is suggested as a more suitable venue for discussion on this topic. A new difficulty algorithm proposal is presented, utilizing a simple rolling average with a smaller window. This approach has been implemented by many small coins to prevent sudden departure of big miners, leaving constant miners with high difficulty. The proposed algorithm is deemed faster, simpler, and better than any other known difficulty algorithm.The email thread on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list focuses on a contingency plan in case the incumbent chain following Bitcoin Core consensus rules is subjected to a 51% attack. The proposal suggests a hard fork to implement a new difficulty algorithm using a simple rolling average with a smaller window. The reward would be adjusted based on recent solvetimes to maintain the coin issuance rate on schedule. However, concerns are raised about the technical merits of the proposal and the rush to implement it through a poorly reviewed hard fork. It is suggested that this proposal be reframed as a research problem for a future properly planned hard fork. The hardfork research group is recommended as a more appropriate venue for further discussion.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T22:01:33.815546+00:00