This sounds like an ideal compromise. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Frank F wrote: > > If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be > addressed > > and fixed instead of outright abandoned. > > They have been, resulting in a replacement called "getblocktemplate" > which (presumably) almost everyone talking to bitcoin(d|-qt) has been > using for a long time. > > I think removing the ability to mine in the stock package would be > regrettable, but to be honest we already don't have it for the > mainnet. I think we should do as Jeff suggests and remove getwork. But > I think we should also package along a proper getblocktemplate miner > to remove any doubt that we're providing a full network node here. (I > note that the choice of miner is also easy: Regardless of people's > preferences which way or another, AFAIK only luke's bfgminer stuff can > mine directly against bitcoin getblocktemplate with no pool in the > middle. It also supports a huge variety of hardware, and a superset > of our target platforms) > -- *MONEY IS OVER!* IF YOU WANT IT ===================================================== The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money. -Serj Tankian