if bch miners were losing out on $ when the daa was 144 blocks vs btc's 1440 blocks; perhaps a similar strategy in reverse will cause btc's miners to give up $ to bch switch mining... would just be on a longer timeframe, roughly 10x the oscillation frequency of the previous 1-day oscillations? Speculatively, anyways
The problem with the DAA not adjusting frequently for BCH as a minority hashrate chain was that miners would game it for profit. Because of this, there would be long periods with way too much time between blocks. Some miners still pulled us through, but the consistent excessive blocktimes caused in that historical scenario (that it sounds like you think could have been good for something) aren't good from a utility perspective.
Right. It was never about "making sure mining is still profitable".. it was about getting rid of turbo blocks followed by long wait times
Do you mean when the DAA had the same timing as btc? Would that be 2017-2020? Or...?
Oh I see. So was that the CW daa that was gamed so badly it had to be replaced w/ asert ?
They issue existed with the original DAA and Amaury Sechet's DAA didn't really resolve it (Amaury is ecash and was ABC, which forked from BCH, but ABC was the de-facto "standard implementation" until he finally pushed the BCH community too far). The gaming of thr algorithms and timing of the slow block periods may have changed, but IIRC, the problems existed in both cases.
Oh lol, I was reading about the cw-144 daa and for some reason thought it was talking about Craig Wright 😅. Even though it says in there cw stands for chainwork
Обсуждают сегодня