MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANOOu=9W42upZGtXWvRwyJH0tO766VT37jAR23V_rCZ9+qxTTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8=xuKmE2rgNK+Q4g+Gqvy3QuYAXzVRYtWKC2VttuB_LJmyMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANOOu=9W42upZGtXWvRwyJH0tO766VT37jAR23V_rCZ9+qxTTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?S2FyZWwgQsOtbGVr?= <kb@karelbilek.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:25:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGUkT8ZTtR_ysR+0Ufq4k=SLeifEOQYtrak6G_iJRQqc3dt6Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposals for improving Bitcoin mining
	decentralization
Precedence: list

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Christophe Biocca
<christophe.biocca@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate is supposed to solve most
> of the pooling-centralization problems.

This. There is no need to create anything new when GBT already exists.
In my opinion.

> Unfortunately, it is opt-in,
> and GHash.io doesn't support it.

Yep. As pools in general are not a part of the bitcoin protocol itself
(nobody cares how the work happened), I am not sure how this can be
forced.

> Also most miners don't care and don't do the work to set it up. To do
> transaction inclusion themselves, they'd need to run a full node,
> which is a bit more work and resources than just pointing hashpower at
> a stratum server.

Also, yep. If the miners cared about 51% attack, they wouldn't join
ghash in the first place. All the miners willingly accept the risk in
joining the big pool.

K. B.

> If you figure out a way to make GBT widely used (>50% hashpower), kudos t=
o you.
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Ra=C3=BAl Mart=C3=ADnez <rme@i-rme.es> w=
rote:
>> First of all I apologice due to the possible mistakes in my writing belo=
w, I
>> am not a Bitcoin developer but I have some knowledge about it.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> We all know the recent news, Ghash pool controlling 51% of the hashrate.
>> While some consider it a threat others think that is not harmful.
>>
>> The thing is that we have to do something to stop this from happening ag=
ain.
>>
>> My proposal is to start thinking about miners that join a pool like
>> independent miners and not slave miners, this includes creating a new mi=
ning
>> protocol that does not rely on the pool sending the list of transactions=
 to
>> include in a block. Each individual miner has to collect transactions by=
 his
>> own and mine that, this can be achieved by running a full node or by run=
ning
>> a SPV like node that ask other nodes for transactions.
>>
>> Once this protocol is developed and standarised we as a community could
>> require all pools to use it (because its better, because is more
>> trustless...), not by imposing it but by recommending it.
>>
>> Pool owners could send some instructions using this protocol to the mine=
r
>> about how many transactions to include per block (some pools want small
>> blocks), how many 0 fee transactions to include, how much is the minimum=
 fee
>> per Kb to include transactions and some info about the Coinbase field in=
 the
>> block.
>>
>> This way is impossible to perform some of the possible 51% attacks:
>>
>> A pool owner cant mine a new chain (selfish mining) (pool clients have a=
 SPV
>> or full node that has checkpoints and ask other peers about the length o=
f
>> the chain)
>> A pool owner can't perform double spends or reverse transactions (pool
>> clients know all the transactions relayed to the network, they know if t=
hey
>> are already included on a block)
>> A pool owner cant decide which transactions not to include (but they can
>> configure the minimum fee).
>> A pool owner cant get all the rewards by avoiding other pools from minin=
g
>> blocks (Because the pool client knows the last block independently that =
is
>> from his pool or other).
>>
>>
>> The only thing that a 51% pool owner can do is to shut down his pool and
>> drop the hashrate by 51% because he does not control the miners.
>>
>> If the pool owner owns all the hardware in the pool my proposal is not
>> valid, if the pool clients dont use this protocol my proposal is not val=
id.
>>
>>
>> I want to know if this is possible or its been developed or there is alr=
eady
>> a working protocol that works like this, also I want to read other peopl=
e's
>> ways to address this threat, thanks for reading.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>> HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solution=
s
>> Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems
>> Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.
>> Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions
> Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems
> Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.
> Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development