Thanks Mike.
Indeed, I am aware of current approach, which is why I was suggesting
this as an alternative.
I haven't thought about it enough, and perhaps it was too radical a
rethinking - just wanted to see what the smarter minds thought.
Thanks again.
-Randi
On 7/5/14, 4:43 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
Is it possible instead to allocate a portion of the reward to " a # of
runner up(s)" even though the runner-up(s) block will be orphaned?
There's really no concept of a "runner up" because hashing is progress
free. It's unintuitive and often trips people up. There's no concept
that everyone is 95% of the way to finding a solution and then someone
pips you to the post. It's more like playing the lottery over and over
again. Doesn't matter how many times you did it before, the next time
your chances are the same.
A better concept is of rewarding "near miss" solutions which is what
we already do of course, via pools, which pay you for shares which
don't quite meet the difficulty target but almost do. So the question
is how can we implement pools which have this reward structure (which
obviously works well) without miners simultaneously giving up their
right to block creation either due to technical problems or sheer
lazyness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
