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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Sta0l-0006OJ-AD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:58:31 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Sta0k-0001uv-Gg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:58:31 +0000 Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so2770035wib.10 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:58:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.81.165 with SMTP id b5mr4539166wiy.17.1343116704401; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.19.13 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:58:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201207222052.28579.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:58:24 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jjVWaZLIoBwDKxn3XrEFkRggH3c Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Sta0k-0001uv-Gg Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering block version number use 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: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:58:31 -0000 > That'd be 7 bytes of nonce in the block header, which is > 72,057,594,037,927,936 ~ 72 petahashes = 72,000 terahashes > > So: the changes for version 2 blocks would be "has height in the > coinbase, and has a 1-byte version number with a 3-byte extranonce." I don't understand why more nonce bits are necessary. Is it really impossible for a multi-core CPU to keep up with the merkle root re-calculation and keep an ASIC miner fed, or is this working around a performance bottleneck somewhere else?