I could add a comparison to p2pool if you want, but bear in mind this is a
blog post designed to introduce a complex topic to a wide audience, not a
literature review of all possible designs and prior art.
In particular, while P2Pool and DCFMP share a goal (decentralize mining),
the approaches to
How does this differ from p2pool?
If you've just re-invented p2pool, shouldn't you credit their prior art?
Monero is doing their implementation of p2pool. They have viable solo
mining, as far as I understand. The basic idea is you have several
P2pools. If you have a block time of 10 minutes,
You basically described Braidpool:
https://github.com/pool2win/braidpool
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-August/019371.html
We're working on this actively and will have some updates soon. Additional
contributors are most welcome.
To your points below:
1.
Hi Billy!
Thanks for your response. Some replies inline:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:01 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Looks like an interesting proposal, but it doesn't seem to quite match the
> goals you mentioned. As you do mention, this
Hi Devs,
Today's post is showing off how the Sapio Studio, the GUI smart contract
composer for Sapio, functions.
https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2021/12/15/advent-18/
In contrast to other posts this is mostly pictures.
This is a part of the project that could definitely use some development
assistance
Looks like an interesting proposal, but it doesn't seem to quite match the
goals you mentioned. As you do mention, this mining pool coordination
doesn't get rid of the need for mining pools in the first place. So it
doesn't satisfy item 1 on your goal list afaict.
The primary benefits over what
Bitcoin is a protocol. Protocols should be:
Secure;
Backwards compatible;
Forward compatible;
and agreed by consensus
For Bitcoin, these properties are particularly important.
The fourth one is important not just because Bitcoin is a payment network,
but because more eyes on code creates
