@vjudeu
> If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where
someone is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing
is needed.. your consensus is no longer "the heaviest chain"
You've misunderstood my suggestion. This would not be possible with what I
sugges
> If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where
> someone is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing
> is needed. Then, your consensus is no longer "the heaviest chain", but "the
> heaviest signed chain". That means, your computing power is no longer
>
> Associating signing with proof of stake and thereby concluding that signing
> is something to avoid sounds like superstitious thinking.
If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where someone
is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing is needed.
The
> you can assign some minimal difficulty,
I was assuming that would be part of the plan.
> Signing sounds more like Proof of Stake
Associating signing with proof of stake and thereby concluding that signing
is something to avoid sounds like superstitious thinking. A signing scheme
with proof of
> I was thinking that this would be a separate blockchain with separate headers
> that progress linearly like a normal blockchain.
Exactly, that's what I called "superblocks", where you have a separate chain,
just to keep block headers instead of transactions.
> A block creator would collect toge
high level response:
including a small number of block headers (10?) directly as op_return
metadata (or something) doesn't have that high overhead necessarily, but
could be super effective at helping miners participate with lower hashrate.
the reason to include this as on-chain data is so that the
@Jeremy
> for top-level pool participants there is never any central custody.
I definitely see that. That was actually what I meant when I said the goals
aren't the same as benefits. While your idea definitely satisfies all your
goals in a modular way, the fact that it relies on pools means that
> The missing piece here would be an ordering of weak blocks to make the window
> possible. Or at least a way to determine what blocks should definitely be
> part of a particular block's pay out. I could see this being done by a
> separate ephemeral blockchain (which starts fresh after each Bitc
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, p
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. Incr
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 mini
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 we
You are hand waving. Attempting to redefine terms to justify your argument is
intellectually dishonest. Bitcoin pools have *always* been about variance
reduction. Your window function fundamentally CANNOT be used to hedge hashrate.
Various suggestions below introduce dangerous new games that might
This, quite simply, is not a "pool". A pool is by definition a tool to reduce
profit variance by miners by collecting "weak blocks" that do not meet the
difficulty target, so as to get a better statistical measure of each miner's
hashrate, which is used to subdivide profits. These are called "share
I've received some confused messages that whatever I was replying to didn't
come through, I've reproduced Bob's e-mail below that I was responding to
for context:
*This, quite simply, is not a "pool". A pool is by definition a tool to
reduceprofit variance by miners by coll
Bitcoin didn't invent the concept of pooling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooling_(resource_management). This is a
Bitcoin Mining Pool, although it may not be your favorite kind, which is
fixated on specific properties of computing contributions before finding a
block. Pooling is just a general t
> Can you maybe try stating the goals of your payout function, and then
> demonstrate how what you're proposing meets that?
The goals are quite simple: if you are a solo miner, you are trying to mine a
block that meets the network difficulty. If you are using some kind of pool,
then you are tr
Hey there!
Thanks for your response!
One of the reasons to pick a longer window of, say, a couple difficulty
periods would be that you can make participation in the pool hedge you
against hashrate changes.
You're absolutely spot on to think about the impact of pooling w.r.t.
variance when fees >
> how to select an analyze the choice of window
Currently, we need 100 blocks to spend the coinbase transaction and I think
that should be our "window".
> and payout functions
Something like "miner-based difficulty" should do the trick. So, each miner is
trying to produce its own block, with its
Howdy, welcome to day 15!
Today's post covers a form of a mining pool that can be operated as sort of
a map-reduce over blocks without any "infrastructure".
https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2021/12/12/advent-15/
There's still some really open-ended questions (perhaps for y'all to
consider) around how to
21 matches
Mail list logo
