From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C52332C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:27:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f181.google.com (mail-yw0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08C5A287 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z8so23379690ywa.1 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=O+NL8HWcPeDrqXcwPg4aSnUMyIzC/HbtObOsxVwwLRg=; b=FLnOYAOqbeyoraehyeTvWnUAHflfDt9LRcojeyYc10tAwjTisLHLnCN2ajeQvxdr2c pfq+3yTAmtb3VCVqYbrlKklAQO6z2z8wAJffecgVKHPxO8Yi2stQDRVTX8jglNhg6Le0 r8qnnvDcPizR+XokjF62xXML/7ZbLE9clyhgYQ1oGlUhMxo6qYEDm2frs/syrqiPVTsj PYxCarRuo1xMoT3/FBVtkgxvj+7WuM6pCdXuS5xTs/A7IzABO+caNOJE9G4YlDRalZnY d/bm81xPvq4TUGjiToJIOaIY6Q+vLZRBgGF4htFssgfLotRW6mlwoCFqtc+wJLlKjLig ZmtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O+NL8HWcPeDrqXcwPg4aSnUMyIzC/HbtObOsxVwwLRg=; b=fNaqpdDvSjs643wcHa8K/jeQrEiHfnlxu0AqW0WELk3+xRhYQwxEyfjSnZze3nMA0y U9agu2V3HmV58dooxtSpXszjzfr+6MqAUpcT6waMfC+FiMacF1AuK6LLM4DlAHeK3MwX rXVzmAoWXlMg8es7GzM8dd/7lq7bkpbwbgoeuOepsNUw/TPfQamjl0CgzgbRfGge2G9s xl4XW4Zcig5yXoDo4j83xuEWipwkTcxcWN+hNacNKjQROjhcCPZNZJw+TPfZoNP8jRX1 /no+FeuZrDGqbyi8xvX0x2QR7WEymKCsDQsZw6lk1/USswUTDETsrXCsR3Ec9vaOHhRa /eLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousGFthT2Eri8HsMIOhp6ZmugfXgPYZWbn7apSQfZ0SwAom2CcphiXB/y2tesDpGKYS2+ZEY7KN0iQrVgg== X-Received: by 10.13.221.149 with SMTP id g143mr22300188ywe.52.1469554043222; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.37.88.214 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1659997.Te2m0CHHuS@garp> References: <1659997.Te2m0CHHuS@garp> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:27:22 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: diRwKQdgYsIs5J2_Oqph0Ge4fWE Message-ID: To: Tom , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reasons to add sync flags to Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:27:24 -0000 --94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 - Flags will be mined selfishly, and not published until the advantage gained from withholding is less than the mining reward. This effect may kill the decentralization features, since big miners will be the only ones that can selfish-mine flags. Indeed, collusion would be encouraged... just ship the flag to the miners you do business with, and no one else. At the expense of loss of flag revenue, your in-group would gain a massive advantage in main-chain mining. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > #Basic idea: > > > > Ideally, all miners would begin hashing the next block at exactly the > same > > time. Miners with a head start are more profitable, and the techniques > that > > help miners receive and validate blocks quickly create centralization > > pressure. > > > > What if there was something that acted like the starting flag at a race, > > which could suddenly wave and cause all of the miners to simultaneously > > begin hashing the next block? > > > > #Implementation: > > > > Let a sync flag be a message consisting of: > > > > 1. Hash of the previous block. > > 2. Bitcoin address > > 3. Nonce > > > > This tiny message could propagate through the network at maximum speed. > If > > miners had to include the hash of this flag in the next block, then all > > miners wait for this flag, and when it suddenly spread through the > network, > > all miners could simultaneously begin hashing the next block. > > What you describe in this part of your message can be done with no forks > whatsoever and I think that this is enough. Don't really see the reason for > any change in funding. > > The idea of sending out a block header is essentially what I called > "optimistic mining" and has been described in more detail in my blog here; > http://zander.github.io/posts/Innovation%20-%20OnlineScaling/ > > The video explains with graphics too... > > You may find this interesting :) > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  • Flags will be mine= d selfishly, and not published until the advantage gained from withholding = is less than the mining reward.=C2=A0 This effect may kill the decentraliza= tion features, since big miners will be the only ones that can selfish-mine= flags.=C2=A0 Indeed, collusion would be encouraged... just ship the flag t= o the miners you do business with, and no one else.=C2=A0=C2=A0 At the expe= nse of loss of flag revenue, your in-group would gain a massive advantage i= n main-chain mining.

On Tu= e, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> #Basic idea:
>
> Ideally, all miners would begin hashing the next block at exactly the = same
> time. Miners with a head start are more profitable, and the techniques= that
> help miners receive and validate blocks quickly create centralization<= br> > pressure.
>
> What if there was something that acted like the starting flag at a rac= e,
> which could suddenly wave and cause all of the miners to simultaneousl= y
> begin hashing the next block?
>
> #Implementation:
>
> Let a sync flag be a message consisting of:
>
> 1. Hash of the previous block.
> 2. Bitcoin address
> 3. Nonce
>
> This tiny message could propagate through the network at maximum speed= . If
> miners had to include the hash of this flag in the next block, then al= l
> miners wait for this flag, and when it suddenly spread through the net= work,
> all miners could simultaneously begin hashing the next block.

What you describe in this part of your message can be done with no forks whatsoever and I think that this is enough. Don't really see the reason= for
any change in funding.

The idea of sending out a block header is essentially what I called
"optimistic mining" and has been described in more detail in my b= log here;
http://zander.github.io/posts/Innovatio= n%20-%20OnlineScaling/

The video explains with graphics too...

You may find this interesting :)
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658--