1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
|
Return-Path: <jg@112bit.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61FB3905
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com
[67.231.154.164])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C354B86
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pure.maildistiller.com (unknown [10.110.50.29])
by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server)
with ESMTP id 0A1A88009E; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine
Received: from mx2-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.110.49.251])
by pure.maildistiller.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with
ESMTPS id 7EA3D80054; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
(mail-by2nam01lp0184.outbound.protection.outlook.com
[216.32.181.184])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mx2-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with
ESMTPS id 243F180081; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=NETORG2631885.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-112bit-com;
h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;
bh=oQgtWaOY2oSSLizSpvpk9NOCyXLQ5oi1o1mN3rHo5sE=;
b=cuHThnx7Foc9xG0rjOHV5amyUa6qGz5vc/q+y7eJuGmuXkLk5y9JqpehqLc/EmIu1ImUQ4S5cv40ovaSUYLkp43amOTWqII3aIjPd6XCbHsyj6RS11xfME7VzSUbiLfMpCVzsfSRCP2DG3ChYaaMXmMled9TAmz2rL9qt9tRLeI=
Received: from RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.171.138.19) by
RO1P152MB1644.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.171.138.21) with Microsoft
SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id
15.1.991.14; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:40 +0000
Received: from RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.171.138.19]) by
RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.171.138.19]) with mapi id
15.01.0991.020; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:40 +0000
From: Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com>
To: Stian Ellingsen <stian@plaimi.net>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
Thread-Index: AQHSpxYoAh886MfhHE6TOrDxMsbDUqGo9v0AgAFb31A=
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:40 +0000
Message-ID: <RO1P152MB16426009B098E1EA6280ECEBF5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com>
<c0d518f4-ffb5-704b-02ee-d9587415571c@plaimi.net>
In-Reply-To: <c0d518f4-ffb5-704b-02ee-d9587415571c@plaimi.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: plaimi.net; dkim=none (message not signed)
header.d=none; plaimi.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=112bit.com;
x-originating-ip: [181.92.119.253]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; RO1P152MB1644;
7:693JfL4he2M20NNwdwQSyhhiiunvvk3b8sGLythgVzVfE3cctrRoJqR7lXWGC7h04ipMBOzDEBHaqXT5w1auiVs/Jtlo/OAWW1ihcsD2Y1uKOQoTTrziJwtrcY+P2dnE1ZKtQyBgaq3vQYKbpjvDqJS0xse701mDtgFYh5WzkLHnKD/9tersHLCIAt9MLE6MenumifJ8H18EYtX4YWFGgRo3b1gWbXXQxg/t+pyKXJOXZdkRERNnpr/wleXYYqBp/LKZ+PPcJvXgcj0EJLJXp7kKSAbQwnFcvYx5gVlQ5M2nia1LjdYTLTRMQAl+eyE5Q2944ogMaEWhekiP/TBKyQ==;
20:2bSYB1uNsMijly38xGO7lk7FBSAP706ZHgOGhG2AaoNThQWPedKrjYXFxy0sIaCVKokKDz16AL+UpoYEYsTURtRkrtTYwj6h86IwflmHF0nBQ6ChZXKIIGNCizAxTeAsjjLXWykzEo7sJ2uAuWp5j8wcgSUWR1qNAT4YcC7vNiA=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c1d205c3-34a3-48bb-0664-08d475e82089
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075);
SRVR:RO1P152MB1644;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <RO1P152MB1644964357C3DB651924A5A0F5320@RO1P152MB1644.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0;
RULEID:(6040375)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123558025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(2016111802025)(20161123555025)(6043046)(6072148);
SRVR:RO1P152MB1644; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:RO1P152MB1644;
x-forefront-prvs: 0260457E99
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;
SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(6039001)(39450400003)(377454003)(13464003)(24454002)(2900100001)(229853002)(38730400002)(53936002)(2906002)(6246003)(6306002)(122556002)(50986999)(76176999)(9686003)(7736002)(3846002)(55016002)(189998001)(66066001)(6116002)(102836003)(7696004)(54356999)(74316002)(305945005)(6506006)(8676002)(81166006)(33656002)(2950100002)(8936002)(77096006)(25786009)(86362001)(3280700002)(5660300001)(3660700001)(6436002)(53546009)(42262002);
DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:RO1P152MB1644;
H:RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None;
MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: 112bit.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Mar 2017 14:38:40.4235 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 1d040637-74d5-403e-b49a-443aa975c900
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: RO1P152MB1644
X-MDID: 1490711924-Xi1HeeGEi9DV
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:11:39 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:47 -0000
If a miner try to hurt the network mining just empty blocks at some time th=
e rest will start rejecting their blocks and will be orphans so will loss t=
he reward incentive and that miner will join the behavior of the rest of th=
e miners, if that miner has 51% of hashrate there the smallest problem are =
the empty blocks.
-----Original Message-----
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bou=
nces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Stian Ellingsen via bitcoin-de=
v
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 2:50 PM
To: Btc Ideas <btcideas@protonmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
On 27/03/17 18:12, Btc Ideas via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more=20
> transactions. This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same height=20
> are found. The first good block mined would be orphaned if it had less=20
> transactions than another. Optionally, have this rule apply to the=20
> current block and the previous one.
This would encourage miners to make their own tiny junk transactions to fil=
l up their blocks, perhaps leaving larger, more space-efficient transaction=
s in the mempool.
> This increases incentive for full blocks because a miner thinking the=20
> faster propagation of a smaller block will win him the reward, but=20
> that would no longer be a good assumption.
> I read some miners could attack a chain by mining small or empty=20
> blocks. This makes that a little more difficult, but they can still=20
> attack the chain many ways.
"Good" miners should probably build upon the block with a set of transactio=
ns more similar to what they themselves would include based on their mempoo=
l at the time. However, miners don't have an incentive to do so today. In=
stead, they may be better off building upon the block that leaves the most =
valuable transactions in the mempool, e.g. a small or empty block, and mayb=
e leave some valuable transactions in the mempool for the next miner.[1] T=
his issue could possibly be addressed by a soft-fork that requires miners t=
o pay a portion of their fees to future miners.
[1]
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-bl=
ock-reward/
--
Stian
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
