On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > It strikes me that this would work best if the pool has a mempool with > child-pays-for-parent support where conflicts *are* allowed. > > IE you record whatever transactions you know about, conflicting or not, > calculate which ones gives you the most fees/kb, and then figure out > which set of non-conflicting ones are optimal. Of course, "optimal" is > the knapsack problem... > > Now you can easilly tell the miners working on shares for you which tx's > would be optimal if they wish to know, and at the same time whatever > shares they send you are most likely to include transactions in your > mempool inventory, and thus they can send just tx hashes to reduce > bandwidth. > > > Part of the broader issue that when we send peers INV advertisements we > should be telling them what the fee/kb is so our peers can prioritize > properly. That'd also help for the case where you want to broadcast two > transactions in a row, but the pair is only profitable because the > second is paying the fee for the first.
Interesting proposals, particularly this last. The net result impact is, however, that which was criticized in at least one forum thread: replace-with-higher-fee. > Speaking of, the way we tell peers about new blocks is really > suboptimal: we tell every peer, in no particular order, about a new > block via a block INV message, and then we give them the new block in > parallel. I was looking through comp-sci papers on optimal > flood-fill/gossip algorithms for random graph networks and it appears > that optimal is to spend all your bandwidth to send the message to your > fastest peer first, followed by your next fastest and so on. This works > best because you get the exponential growth scaling faster by > propagating the message as "deep" as possible in the network, and it > then can flood outwards from there. Just sorting the peer list by > #inv-recevied/time when doing INV pushes and when attending to incoming > messages would probably be a big improvement. In terms of packet size, I would like to look into the network-wide costs of simply broadcasting block header + coinbase TX + TX list. I bet miners would love to opt into that. >> > If the share does meet difficulty, hand it to both the pool and the >> > local bitcoind. Should hand it to the pool first though, because the >> > pool likely has the fastest block propagation, then hand it to local >> > bitcoind. An optimized version may want to have some record of measured >> > bandwidth - this applies Bitcoin in general too, although also has other >> > issues. >> >> Currently, BFGMiner is doing submission to the pool, waiting for a response, >> then submitting to a local bitcoind. This is because the pool might need to >> receive/record the share before it processes the block on bitcoind, or you >> could lose credit for it. The response from the pool is rather small (a >> single >> TCP packet), so this shouldn't delay much longer. > > Right, I guess the pool wants to be sure you were actually the one who > found the share, rather than just someone who was lucky enough to see it > on the network and submitted it as your own. > >> > ## Reducing bandwidth >> > >> > How about for normal shares we just pass the block header, and have the >> > pool randomly pick a subset of transactions to audit? Any fraud cancels >> > the users shares. This will work best in conjunction with a UTXO proof >> > tree to prove fees, or by just picking whole shares randomly to audit. >> >> Might as well just use higher difficulty shares (each one audited) for the >> same effect. Block proposals allow the miner to tell the pool its transaction >> set once (per txset change) for any number of shares. > > That's a good point - the current practice most pools seem to follow of > about a share per second seems very excessive to me. On the other hand, > it does have good user optics. The right solution might be something > akin to P2Pool where the UI level is telling the user shares are being > found so it's clear "stuff is happening", but under the hood only a > small subset are ever sent to the pool. With the onslaught of ASIC mining, most big pools are past a share per second. Variable difficulty or set-to-higher-difficulty quickly became the norm, almost out of necessity. Personally, I think most pools should target at _least_ 5-10 seconds per share, no matter the strength of the miner. -- Jeff Garzik Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoinemail@example.com https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development