On Sep 28, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Suppose that you've solved a block Z (weak or not) and you want to propagate
> it using a previous weak block Y. With "efficient differential transmission",
> I assume that you refer to the transmission of the differences b
2015-09-27 21:50 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell :
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > I was mansplaining weak blocks to my wife. She asked a simple question:
> >
> > Why would I, as a miner, publish a weak block if I find one?
> >
> > I don't know.
> > Sure,
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I was mansplaining weak blocks to my wife. She asked a simple question:
>
> Why would I, as a miner, publish a weak block if I find one?
>
> I don't know.
> Sure, I will get faster propagation for my solved block, should I f
I was mansplaining weak blocks to my wife. She asked a simple question:
Why would I, as a miner, publish a weak block if I find one?
I don't know.
Sure, I will get faster propagation for my solved block, should I find one.
On the other hand everybody else mining a similar block will enjoy the sa
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Unless the weak block transaction list can be a superset of the block
> transaction list size proportional propagation costs are not totally
> eliminated.
>
The POW threshold could b
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> Avoiding this is why I've always previously described this idea as
>> merged mined block DAG (with blocks of arbitrary strength) which are
>> always efficiently deferentially coded against prior state. A new
>> solution (regardless of who c
Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
writes:
> I've been thinking about 'weak blocks' and SPV mining, and it seems to me
> weak blocks will make things better, not worse, if we improve the mining
> code a little bit.
>
> First: the idea of 'weak blocks' (hat tip to Rusty for the term) is for
> miners t
Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
writes:
> I don't see any incentive problems, either. Worst case is more miners
> decide to skip validation and just mine a variation of the
> highest-fee-paying weak block they've seen, but that's not a disaster--
> invalid blocks will still get rejected by all the
On Sep 23, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Take care, here-- if a scheme is used where e.g. the full solution had
> to be exactly identical to a prior weak block then the result would be
> making mining not progress free because bigger miners would have
> disproportion
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> [...]
> > A miner could try to avoid validation work by just taking a weak block
> > announced by somebody else, replacing the coinbase and re-computing the
> > me
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> more recently:
> http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-09-20.log
> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/roundgroup-roundup-1/
> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/bitcoin-block-propagation-iblt-rusty-
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Imagine miners always pre-announce the blocks they're working on to their
> peers, and peers validate those 'weak blocks' as quickly as they are able.
>
> Because weak blocks are pre-v
Thanks for the reply, Gavin. I agree on all points.
Peter
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Peter R wrote:
>
> Hi Gavin,
>
> One thing that's not clear to me is whether it is even necessary--from the
> perspective of the block size limit--to consider block propagation.
I didn't mention the block size limit; weak blocks are a good idea no matter
the
Hi Gavin,
One thing that's not clear to me is whether it is even necessary--from the
perspective of the block size limit--to consider block propagation. Bitcoin
has been successfully operating unconstrained by the block size limit over its
entire history (except for in the past few months)--bl
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> First: the idea of 'weak blocks' (hat tip to Rusty for the term)
Here are some other "weak blocks" and "near blocks" proposals or mentions:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=
For anyone who missed the discussions of weak blocks, here are the Scaling
Bitcoin's transcripts:
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/bitcoin-block-propagation-iblt-rusty-russell/
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/roundgroup-roundup-1/
(under Network Propagation).
On
I've been thinking about 'weak blocks' and SPV mining, and it seems to me
weak blocks will make things better, not worse, if we improve the mining
code a little bit.
First: the idea of 'weak blocks' (hat tip to Rusty for the term) is for
miners to pre-announce blocks that they're working on, befo
18 matches
Mail list logo
