From: Ron Elliott <ronaldbelliott@gmail•com>
To: "Raúl Martínez" <rme@i-rme•es>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposals for improving Bitcoin mining decentralization
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:06:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMEND1jz67Juz4h6q-iJQqsP+DFaQ4OWrwByzzhVQ3XmardbvQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8=xuLCAyYGV6hmdKRxOGNGHyQvkgnGcwKNN=1JYUhSzvxD2w@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4308 bytes --]
as I understood your proposal the entire block would be created on the
miner rather than just the block header. Currently miners do not receive a
list of transactions, they receive information required to create the block
header, this is how you keep miners honest. if the miner is creating the
full block we are right back to where we were.
I've only worked with implementing the mining process for a few months now
so someone correct me if I have the process wrong
On Jun 17, 2014 7:01 AM, "Raúl Martínez" <rme@i-rme•es> wrote:
> Because he cant change the coinbase once the proof of work is done.
> El 17/06/2014 15:58, "Ron Elliott" <ronaldbelliott@gmail•com> escribió:
>
>> In this scenario how do you ensure the miner solving the block cannot
>> reapportion the subsidy to himself rather than the pool?
>> On Jun 17, 2014 2:09 AM, "Raúl Martínez" <rme@i-rme•es> wrote:
>>
>>> First of all I apologice due to the possible mistakes in my writing
>>> below, I am not a Bitcoin developer but I have some knowledge about it.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> We all know the recent news, Ghash pool controlling 51% of the hashrate.
>>> While some consider it a threat others think that is not harmful.
>>>
>>> The thing is that we have to do something to stop this from happening
>>> again.
>>>
>>> My proposal is to start thinking about miners that join a pool like
>>> independent miners and not slave miners, this includes creating a new
>>> mining protocol that does not rely on the pool sending the list of
>>> transactions to include in a block. Each individual miner has to collect
>>> transactions by his own and mine that, this can be achieved by running a
>>> full node or by running a SPV like node that ask other nodes for
>>> transactions.
>>>
>>> Once this protocol is developed and standarised we as a community could
>>> require all pools to use it (because its better, because is more
>>> trustless...), not by imposing it but by recommending it.
>>>
>>> Pool owners could send some instructions using this protocol to the
>>> miner about how many transactions to include per block (some pools want
>>> small blocks), how many 0 fee transactions to include, how much is the
>>> minimum fee per Kb to include transactions and some info about the Coinbase
>>> field in the block.
>>>
>>> This way is impossible to perform some of the possible 51% attacks:
>>>
>>> - A pool owner cant mine a new chain (selfish mining) (pool clients
>>> have a SPV or full node that has checkpoints and ask other peers about the
>>> length of the chain)
>>> - A pool owner can't perform double spends or reverse transactions
>>> (pool clients know all the transactions relayed to the network, they know
>>> if they are already included on a block)
>>> - A pool owner cant decide which transactions not to include (but
>>> they can configure the minimum fee).
>>> - A pool owner cant get all the rewards by avoiding other pools from
>>> mining blocks (Because the pool client knows the last block independently
>>> that is from his pool or other).
>>>
>>>
>>> The only thing that a 51% pool owner can do is to shut down his pool and
>>> drop the hashrate by 51% because he does not control the miners.
>>>
>>> If the pool owner owns all the hardware in the pool my proposal is not
>>> valid, if the pool clients dont use this protocol my proposal is not valid.
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to know if this is possible or its been developed or there is
>>> already a working protocol that works like this, also I want to read other
>>> people's ways to address this threat, thanks for reading.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions
>>> Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems
>>> Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.
>>> Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5418 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-17 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-17 8:57 Raúl Martínez
2014-06-17 13:58 ` Ron Elliott
2014-06-17 14:01 ` Raúl Martínez
2014-06-17 14:06 ` Ron Elliott [this message]
2014-06-17 14:20 ` Christophe Biocca
2014-06-17 18:25 ` Karel Bílek
2014-06-17 19:01 ` Raúl Martínez
2014-06-17 15:58 ` Isidor Zeuner
2014-06-17 9:23 Mistr Bigs
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=CAMEND1jz67Juz4h6q-iJQqsP+DFaQ4OWrwByzzhVQ3XmardbvQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ronaldbelliott@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=rme@i-rme$(echo .)es \
/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