I’ve decided to support @GrassFedBitcoin’s proposal for a 6-month rolling coinbase maturity extension (CBME) until RDTS expiry, despite my preference for 1 year fixed. I want to explain why, because I don’t think this is nearly the concession it might appear to be. The objective has always been to discourage short-term, profit-driven hashrate from exploiting the network. The question is how best to accomplish that, and I think the rolling design matters more than people are giving it credit for. The original 1-year proposal had a fixed expiration tied to RDTS. That creates a significant weakness: a block mined the day before RDTS expires could mature the following day. As we approach expiration, the deterrent progressively weakens. With 6 months rolling, every block mined while the rule is active carries the full 6-month maturity requirement, including those mined immediately before expiration. This creates a substantial overhang of immature rewards extending six months beyond RDTS, for an effective period of up to 18 months. It’s a shorter lockup per block, but a more consistent deterrent throughout the entire period. Now consider the consensus problem. There’s broad support for 1 year, but there’s a meaningful difference between ~55% support and 75% support. We can continue arguing over whether the additional six months of maturity would produce materially better outcomes, but the reality is that nobody has concrete evidence to settle that question. Meanwhile, we risk deadlocking the 6-month and 1-year camps until the existing 45-day fixed extension expires, or 45-day rolling takes effect. That would be a substantially worse outcome than either proposal. Six months rolling gives the 1-year camp much of what it wants while requiring the 45-day camp to accept a significant increase in maturity. And let’s be clear, six months is still brutal for short-term miners. It doesn’t gradually acclimate the leeches to the network by easing restrictions as expiration approaches. It maintains the deterrent right up to the end, effectively easing them out rather than easing them in. I understand the hardliner position because I largely share it. But there’s a difference between compromising on the objective and compromising on the means of achieving it. I’d rather secure a strong deterrent with broad consensus than risk losing the entire effort over a marginal difference in expected outcomes that nobody can reliably quantify. We have other serious problems demanding our attention, particularly the growing amount of spam making its way into mined blocks. I’d like us to resolve this and get back to fighting those battles.