Maybe it's because the arguments being presented are nonsensical and irrelevant to the current Bitcoin network topology, composed of a small number of mining pools, not solo miners? Furthermore I think people would realize that their mining pool has gone "off the reservation" so to speak. On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Allen Piscitello < allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote: > Ryan, > > Why do you continue to try to correct people who clearly have put more > thought into this than you? Everyone understood you just fine, you just > seem to have trouble comprehending why your ideas are terrible. > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote: > >> I think you misunderstood my statement. If time > 3 days, and after 4 >> blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset. >> >> In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of the Bitcoin >> network's hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an attack by a state >> actor as opposed to anything else. Arguably, the safest way to run Bitcoin >> is through a proprietary dial-up network. >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Ryan, these sort of adjustments introduce security risks. If you were >>> isolated from the main chain by a low-hashpower attacker, how would >>> you know? They'd need just three days without you noticing that >>> network block generation has stalled - maybe they wait for a long >>> weekend - then after that the block rate is normal but completely >>> controlled by the attacker (and isolated from mainnet). >>> >>> There are fast acting alternative difficulty adjustment algorithms >>> being explored by some alts, such as the 9-block interval, 144-block >>> window, Parks-McClellan FIR filter used by Freicoin to recover from >>> just such a mining bubble. If it were to happen to bitcoin, there >>> would be sophisticated alternative to turn to, and enough time to make >>> the change. >>> >>> On 12/22/2013 07:10 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote: >>> > I think Bitcoin should have a sanity check: after three days if >>> > only four blocks have been mined, difficulty should be adjusted >>> > downwards. >>> > >>> > This might become important in the near future. I project a >>> > Bitcoin mining bubble. >>> > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) >>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>> >>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSt6yGAAoJEAdzVfsmodw4SegQAIJAWW0OgSjediSWq+EpkReS >>> qMvC2Y9dmVHtowYLdJVcgwFWbpU8RhA6ApQ1Ks2XF4t0hFCObYDecG6Nl3OIaLfb >>> snz24v8ymdxYXKNtzHHUP0VBgsaoRghIpkbf7JMUXC22sxPoPOXFt5RevLgJHrvc >>> oGFZSIcEcGgwhwZ745CgFZLwaKuSmg5+wFFcrjIihlHKJOl47Z7rzeqnD6mf2Oi3 >>> hDpRuVbuhlGMliYcmhk1E6oV0in2R4Purw1WtoY8C9DxrSP2za7W1oeCkmlFfJZS >>> to6SzRj7nEIl0LFaPGsIdBrRdDHfvu6eP2OecI+GNLEwLY6qE5v5fkh47mcDkrN0 >>> 02PmepoX5PRzBqp4sx8WaFKuRbmTRRr3E4i9PGoyzTckkZzq+zFmb1y5fwOy17hE >>> C+nP+DyuaPzjypjdo6V+/oGzUKtuKPtqcB1vurbm+WBl5C1jWosAXv5pR87mdCUJ >>> +0e14wPra5blV6yBVqX7yx+2heDGymPKfHJ8i76Dtix7XVOJWKVY4OpIxO7YrYv8 >>> IKcIswoKhZdSDOJLcjm4Qp4hrzgCHAHWx6vN71r5r2T6zaJTOvp98GS04Yy7VGAr >>> j38hojcwvJC1ahER3LV/vC0cqO+fxrvY8Q9rW2cUxCnzxzjjG0+Z/gjW8uh73lXN >>> DOTF7jpt0ZmCm7uhG9z7 >>> =5Q2H >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT >> organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance >> affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your >> Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics >> Pro! >> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> >