From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UnbBt-00028P-7z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:49 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UnbBs-00081m-7e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:49 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F4CF27A2966; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:39 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Peter Todd 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> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201306142105.29597.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1UnbBs-00081m-7e Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Decentralizing mining X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:49 -0000 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