It doesn’t centralize payment, which ultimately controls transaction selection
(censorship).
e
> On Sep 6, 2021, at 08:25, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:46:55PM -0700, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> How would you compare this to Stratum v2?
On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 09:29:01AM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> It doesn’t centralize payment, which ultimately controls transaction
> selection (censorship).
Yeah, but if you get paid after each share via LN and you can switch
pools instantly, then the worst case with centralized pools is that
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:46:55PM -0700, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> How would you compare this to Stratum v2?
Specifically, I'd be interested in learning what advantages this has
over a centralized mining pool using BetterHash or StratumV2 with
payouts made via LN (perhaps immediately
Hi Jeremy,
I think it would be nice to have and suggested something similar (enforce
minimality) in the context of
Miniscript a few months ago [0].
However your code:
const bool seq_is_reserved = (txin.nSequence < CTxIn::SEQUENCE_FINAL-2) && (
// when sequence is set to disabled, it is
> How would you compare this to Stratum v2?
Stratum v2 will help miners with encryption, broadcasting new blocks,
signalling bits, choose transactions set, however the mining pools can still
reject negotiations and censor payments.
Maybe Stratum v2 can be used in combination with other things
Switching pools has always been possible. But the largest pool is the most
profitable, and centralized pools are easily controlled. Decoupling selection
without decoupling payout is an engineering change without a pooling pressure
change.
e
> On Sep 6, 2021, at 10:01, David A. Harding wrote:
I see Braidpool as an improvement to P2Pool - i.e. make a peer to peer pool
work at scale.
This is in contrast to Stratum v2, which brings some very good and much needed
engineering improvements to centralised pools.
Specifically about transaction selection in Stratum V2, as far as I
