From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:28 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.8-gentoo; KDE/4.10.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <20130527111149.GB8955@tilt> <201306102123.15732.luke@dashjr.org>
	<20130614200654.GB11509@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130614200654.GB11509@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201306142105.29597.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Decentralizing mining
Precedence: list

On Friday, June 14, 2013 8:06:54 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:23:14PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > Might as well just use higher difficulty shares (each one audited) for
> > the same effect. Block proposals allow the miner to tell the pool its
> > transaction set once (per txset change) for any number of shares.
> 
> That's a good point - the current practice most pools seem to follow of
> about a share per second seems very excessive to me. On the other hand,
> it does have good user optics. The right solution might be something
> akin to P2Pool where the UI level is telling the user shares are being
> found so it's clear "stuff is happening", but under the hood only a
> small subset are ever sent to the pool.

Share rate is relevant to more than user information - it also affects the 
variance of reward/payout. I disagree with claiming shares are found when 
they're not sent to the pool - this makes auditing and troubleshooting more 
difficult; for example, see the GUIMiner bug where it reports shares despite 
misinterpreting the pool's target and submitting nothing at all (this happens 
when the pool uses pdiff 1).

> > > # Pool work
> > > 
> > > So does eliopool already accept arbitrary shares like this and do the
> > > correct accounting already? (IE adjust share amount based on fees?)
> > > What happens when the pool doesn't get the share directly, but does
> > > see the new block?
> > > 
> > > + possible protocol extensions
> > 
> > I don't follow.
> 
> What part don't you follow?

I don't understand the first two questions here at all.

Luke