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 5D732722 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 12:21:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBE34167 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 12:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id i75so46189606ioa.3 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 05:21:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KB3HTpYvbtyud+qj0+bbYrOlvx9GUmya9/6dGoDAKW8=; b=DKraHCaMA2cwzQHlAl5kr8dEZ6MjPDVsgRpsAC2M7aQZ03zxSnK21gAfMGHbDla/iz VAr0/iWt+BSuq+zEDekMzx+54ybrBTWuInOPCHwf+nbMUg/LRKJA9vX17CPGo1Uz3pLs p9GOmB/zUCp1aGWQzKwDrkKw6isXS44gLEQwJZNar8B/XwlR9u2PkH1cglevDDrqVk+X XMhLQBH+E0vZdmgcDswygZxVZjHzXgxgdHTXLhVF5hmC/P5yy20hzmhgFrPQS5tK6iOF V8mE277HI5FmT6459FIyjJp3yaakE0PHg/vawoNL/4dTPKIRZDSax8dx6t/Xg2LADEZd gbWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=KB3HTpYvbtyud+qj0+bbYrOlvx9GUmya9/6dGoDAKW8=; b=PKkWvj+d5NUH0keJ67uMCR7HMTFuIJ1gNUZ0gccY2Amc0Pt4Iv1MauyhpShX7k/QFi sLDb+sXy3tWMYE7pSVZuEUa7JXEMpPn7itJxOJi+aZuQp0Sv7I3lXoeCslHeQYa0CBsW dZHD5hFBjbsGnfwXc018/HQjsxjy+uQQYLntJtFZvvabf9kyYIGfx6ikKv6vHxPkZ6Ft tUimyK0BOb/WSBMIL7Wv1FUUF7hLxLYwow5u8QMcP7Ismntpe1C8luU6zo5llntrDzVB LuAP6Ao5xC6RmTlCrDGHCWbau1XBBR9p9a3SG132gKJ1ZjiL403wfHEcGMLhj+W2KNVm lEAA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWmo/nbubGc+jhvi6kh9C7P97UXaRb51ETGK2luCSgBNorbvrlCGV6DNPPeJPXF5FwlqaUh3QrS8xs2gQ== X-Received: by 10.36.73.164 with SMTP id e36mr1821130itd.80.1462969295323; Wed, 11 May 2016 05:21:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.142.69 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:20:55 -0300 Message-ID: To: Tier Nolan , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11447d762a4cbe053290151f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant 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: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:21:36 -0000 --001a11447d762a4cbe053290151f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner < sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You can find it here: > https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/ > > Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of the > second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows increased nonce space in the > first 64 bytes. > > My mistake here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea is to include in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first chunk, not the opposite. --001a11447d762a4cbe053290151f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.= d.lerner@gmail.com> wrote:
=

Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of th= e second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows increased nonce space in th= e first 64 bytes.

My mist= ake here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea is to inclu= de in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first chunk, not the op= posite.

--001a11447d762a4cbe053290151f--