From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail•com>
To: Btc Ideas <btcideas@protonmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:29:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADL_X_dZsQ9uOhoyAU3-s0DixSCwYgh0B+NE78zpo+ghYyphCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1560 bytes --]
Bitcoin chooses the "best chain" based upon the one that has the most
cumulative proof of work behind it. Are you proposing that the cumulative
proof of work be ignored if two blocks are within a certain threshold of
each others' work and if so, the number of transactions in the block / the
size of the block should be used as a "tie breaker?"
I think this idea needs more fleshing out of exactly how it would work,
with careful consideration that adding complexity to the best chain logic
could introduce exploitable flaws.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Btc Ideas via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more transactions.
> This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same height are found. The first
> good block mined would be orphaned if it had less transactions than
> another. Optionally, have this rule apply to the current block and the
> previous one.
>
> This increases incentive for full blocks because a miner thinking the
> faster propagation of a smaller block will win him the reward, but that
> would no longer be a good assumption.
>
> I read some miners could attack a chain by mining small or empty blocks.
> This makes that a little more difficult, but they can still attack the
> chain many ways.
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2377 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-27 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-27 16:12 Btc Ideas
2017-03-27 16:29 ` Jameson Lopp [this message]
[not found] ` <WM!6b16e14ff3d44b0c6c0030538191fb22c33a979bb09131ef246ffc477e216212e64cfae815c6af871886f74be6b38d7f!@mailhub-mx4.ncl.ac.uk>
[not found] ` <VI1PR0701MB2240F0890E5F19E53CF94B43B5330@VI1PR0701MB2240.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
[not found] ` <WM!1f99375705714ae4f8b1288ea47707c53f573e0597317337d41d22e28f801234a0d946b8ef05335cccb825f27bdd72da!@mailhub-mx2.ncl.ac.uk>
2017-03-27 16:29 ` Btc Ideas
2017-03-27 17:29 ` Tom Zander
2017-03-27 20:01 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-27 17:50 ` Stian Ellingsen
2017-03-28 14:38 ` Juan Garavaglia
2017-03-27 20:56 ` Antoine Le Calvez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CADL_X_dZsQ9uOhoyAU3-s0DixSCwYgh0B+NE78zpo+ghYyphCw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jameson.lopp@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=btcideas@protonmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox