From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VdO5H-0003jT-QB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:37:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.95 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.95; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149095.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149095.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.95]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VdO5G-0005Bg-Bv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:37:03 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id rA4Hao6m060191; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:36:50 GMT Received: from petertodd.org (petertodd.org [174.129.28.249]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id rA4HairX060035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:36:47 GMT Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:36:44 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20131104173644.GA3447@petertodd.org> References: <20131104142621.GA2190@petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="liOOAslEiF7prFVr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: ae23c94f-4577-11e3-94fa-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgYUFloCAgsB AmUbWlNeU1t7XWQ7 ag1VcwRfa1RMVxto VEFWR1pVCwQmQ20F fk9HEHFycQVGe3s+ ZERhWXIVDRF4dhV0 RhhJEWgBYnphaTUc TUlcIVJJcANIexZF O1F8UScOLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNyMg QFUNEDMiB0QZSil7 Kh0gJ0RUFk8aMU81 N1ZJ X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 174.129.28.249/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org] X-Headers-End: 1VdO5G-0005Bg-Bv Cc: Ittay Eyal , Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Auto-generated miner backbone 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, 04 Nov 2013 17:37:04 -0000 --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 04:27:58PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > > The correct, and rational, approach for a miner is to always mine to > > extend the block that the majority of hashing power is trying to extend. > > >=20 > There's no stable way to know that. The whole purpose of the block chain = to > establish the majority. I think your near-miss headers solution is > circular/unstable for that reason, it's essentially a recursive solution. >=20 >=20 > > Mining strategy is now to mine to extend the first block you see, on the > > assumption that the earlier one probably propagated to a large portion > > of the total hashing power. But as you receive "near-blocks" that are > > under the PoW target, use them to estimate the hashing power on each > > fork, and if it looks like you are not on the majority side, switch. > > >=20 > But you can't reliably estimate that. You can't even reliably estimate the > speed of the overall network especially not on a short term basis like a > block interval. Re-read my proposal - the whole point of it is to give a way to quickly come to consensus about which side of the fork has the majority of hashing power. It doesn't, and doesn't need to, reliable determine what the hashing power actually is on either side. Rather it's a feedback mechanism that creates a clear majority consensus in a short amount of time with the use of only a small amount of bandwidth. (~5KB/10minutes) --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000079c8a642234cb452cbe261fcdb5885af604471c458c257956 --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSd9ssAAoJEBmcgzuo5/CFX04H/2W6PPX8Nor4GaWKPqlK5Qdj mld1cYWRgBjIRc4naI/6wjkcRa+POdVDciRVSCuKFS3vGis0LbZfj6vM74ao4t4Q sf3X6q5StbPM+cYxc0F2LmNCtp39eTO3hdoZ5CkUugoGpmL4i5uQja/U0VGRPB9T VVl9BD/eYvkl+uZZs8HOBFD0eVGYAUpfRQ4vkYTRw5xyVPx91yCQnf3nH6IuPSwG tvdUJ1Cqo3Qvf2XjOrhhpV2A5zFpXF+9vnfshk4L0VzFluTLhBsYAGPe68rd0x9R /LYKXSURkAOgSoWzhyjdBo/4E2yE10fLaarBHWl8GyC0BW6lWJcDY65CWbOHVL4= =qvc0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --liOOAslEiF7prFVr--