## Making the block reward dependent on the difficulty?

I am looking for papers which discuss, if making the block rewards dependent on the difficulty could be used to curb excessive PoW growth.

Idea is that BTC price roughly drives difficulty and energy consumption proportionaly. If the block rewards would decrease with difficulty (like in `reward=(a+b/difficulty)` with suitable constant values for `a`and `b`) then it would become much faster unprofitable to add more hash power, thus curbing the growth of total hash power and energy consumption.

This must have been discussed somewhere before, but I can not find anything related.

## difficulty – What does it mean to make mining more difficult?

Really I don’t know nothing about bitcoin but now I got curious read something and immediately come to something on mind.

I mean, there’s a social economic comunity somewhere generating value based on the transactions registered, but as they’re cheap and bitcoin wants to add value it adds some senseless? dificulty.

By the other way there’s a full community of scientists and mathematicians fighting for devealing mysteries of nature and knowledge, but most often they don’t have the economic resources for their task, hence there’s a lot of simulations and sequances to solve and here we have a lot of people wasting non renovable resources adding up to climate change doing useless calculations just to generate esteemed value.

Do you see the equation here? If the difficulty added be practical intead of needed, bitcoin would be based on real value, even the mayor value of all that is knowledge.

So Instead of do nothing in order to increase value why not solve some practical mathemathical sequence or do x simulation of some deterministic experiment and share the results with science?

Or am I being the idiot that believes that the world has solution with a naif approach?

## Cant understand how share difficulty affects my chances in solo mining with a pool

So obviously I am not solo mining bitcoin but I think the underlying principles are the same so you guys could help me out here.

I am solo mining ergo on a solo pool (herominers solo pool)

What I do not understand exactly is what **share **difficulty is (not to be mistaken with ergo network difficulty which I understand)

I mean I hash with 2GH/s on ergo I am able to switch between varying share difficulty (which I have notices goes up to like 80GH difficulty) or choose a constant share difficulty.

What I noticed is that if I set that difficulty to 8GH I get more solo valid shares…

But does this mean that the probability of me finding a block decreases because finding a block needs a higher GH share or something like that ?

Could you explain in detail what share difficulty is and maybe advice me if I should use varying difficulty in my case or a constant (and at which value? ) ?

## blockchain – What is the meaning of difficulty in Bitcoin mining?

I’m a beginner in Bitcoin and Blockchain technology, so I have a question after reading about the difficulty in Bitcoin mining:

What the difficulty actually means?

A high difficulty means that it will take more computing power to mine
the same number of blocks, making the network more secure against
attacks

However, I don’t clearly understand.

Ex: When the difficulty is 6, then what I can know from that number?

Thank you so much!

## blockchain – Forced fork of older, low difficulty blocks

Let’s assume main chain (A) height is 1000 and the difficulty adjustment is 50 blocks. At height 450, the difficulty is very small. By modifying timestamp of blocks 450-500, I mine a fork (B) such that at height 500 to 600 the chainWork is higher than A at the same height.

A new peer wants to sync with me. I send B. At height 500 to 600, the peer chooses B and saves A as a fork. Given a long enough forced forking of A, is it possible for the peer to give up on A?

If the client never gives up on a fork, does this open it to fork chain spam attacks?

## operating systems – Difficulty in understanding the “expontential average” plot of the estimate of the next CPU burst with the actual CPU burst

I was going through the portion of exponential averaging (to find the CPU bursts) under Shortest Job First (SJF) Scheduling from the dinosaur by Galvin et. al.

Let $$t_n$$ be the length of the $$n$$th CPU burst, and let $$tau_{n+1}$$ be our predicted value for the next CPU burst. Then, for $$α, 0 ≤ α ≤ 1$$, define
$$tau_{n+1}= alpha.t_n+(1-alpha).tau_{n}$$

Using $$alpha=frac{1}{2}$$ they give a plot as follows:

I am facing few issues with the plot shown above:

1. I feel that the footer of the plot,i.e. the CPU burst and the guess, do not align. What I feel is that the $$0$$ th CPU burst time of $$6$$ units should be above the $$0$$ th “guess” of $$10$$ units in the footer…
2. Though the domain is discrete as a whole, but why is the blue curve continuous? Moreover, strikingly between the time intervals $$2-3$$ and $$3-4$$ why is there a sudden dip in the blue (estimate) curve?

## powered by the apocalypse – Difficulty or penalty in KULT: Divinity Lost tests

Should the GM set a difficulty (a penalty) for player moves, in the form of `Move(2d10) + Attribute - Penalty`?

I’m asking because, despite for Endure Injury move, this is not clear in the book, but it seems reasonable to set a penalty when the situation is clearly disadvantageous for the player characters.

For example, when a PC Engage in Combat against a group of two or more people, without any backup, should the GM ask for a roll with a `-1` (or even greater) penalty?

e.g. Attack when in a minor number

`roll Engage in Combat + Violence - 1`

The contrary also applies, to add a bonus when the players have the situation to their advantage.

e.g. Attack when the opponent is dizzy

`roll Engage in Combat + Violence + 1`

This would make a huge difference for Keep it Together move, where an extreme situation (e.g. seeing a being from another reality) would be much harder to succeed than from a more common one (e.g. looking at a corpse).

## difficulty – Isn’t Bitcoin’s hash target supposed to be a multiple of 2?

From Bitcoin’s whitepaper I’ve gathered that the hash of a block must start with a certain number of zeroes. And that this number of zeroes is adjusted every 2 weeks. Consequently the hash target is a multiple of two.

Requiring an extra zero for the hash function will divide the hash target by 2.

With that being said, in another question on the exchange (How is difficulty calculated?) it appears that the difficulty can be multiplied by fractions (e.g. 40%).

Does that mean that the hash targets aren’t necessarily multiples of 2? Or is the target rounded to the nearest multiple of 2?