From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VBVpP-0003PW-38 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:27 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VBVpN-0005gE-E4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:27 +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 DEF8727A2976; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:04 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.9.9-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: 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: <201308192013.02806.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1VBVpN-0005gE-E4 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind 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: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:27 -0000 On Monday, August 19, 2013 8:09:41 PM Frank F wrote: > I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say > that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that > favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that > bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a > tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what > mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the > ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient > now, is not a good path to start down. > > If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be > addressed and fixed instead of outright abandoned. You missed getblocktemplate. It does everything getwork did and more. Individual solo miners aren't being locked out at all. This is just removal of a protocol that has been obsolete for well over a year now. Luke