diff options
| author | Rebroad (sourceforge) <rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com> | 2012-05-29 17:30:52 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2012-05-29 16:30:59 +0000 |
| commit | 615a81094967da56f396719bcc989b461bc627cd (patch) | |
| tree | b6f2809d5b3088b31c96e956d699149b3ff8676b | |
| parent | 90455ffbfc46090889c651da07be58501e02ee86 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-615a81094967da56f396719bcc989b461bc627cd.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-615a81094967da56f396719bcc989b461bc627cd.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
| -rw-r--r-- | ce/80c79930e65f48ada1b4ffc8468b972f4dd382 | 118 |
1 files changed, 118 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ce/80c79930e65f48ada1b4ffc8468b972f4dd382 b/ce/80c79930e65f48ada1b4ffc8468b972f4dd382 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..309443421 --- /dev/null +++ b/ce/80c79930e65f48ada1b4ffc8468b972f4dd382 @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <rebroad@gmail.com>) id 1SZPJz-0003Rd-LF + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 29 May 2012 16:30:59 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) + client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=rebroad@gmail.com; + helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; +Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) + by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1SZPJy-0003rp-Qh + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 29 May 2012 16:30:59 +0000 +Received: by werg55 with SMTP id g55so3487843wer.34 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Tue, 29 May 2012 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.216.215.153 with SMTP id e25mr7903016wep.189.1338309052623; + Tue, 29 May 2012 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT) +Sender: rebroad@gmail.com +Received: by 10.223.77.65 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <4FC0C401.1040600@justmoon.de> +References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com> + <CANdZDc7+_xBH0DhujnXbh7gVB603qMQdQ7yOO5qq3HEfsJ2Lpw@mail.gmail.com> + <4FC0C401.1040600@justmoon.de> +Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:30:52 +0100 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4TA4joB7-zCRThbrOXXnKJlvX24 +Message-ID: <CAFBxzADDbBZ94ckDHEBccNbPQzfW7NWYfC4AibJZYk654bQ87A@mail.gmail.com> +From: "Rebroad (sourceforge)" <rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com> +Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" + <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3 +X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) +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 + (rebroad[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header + 1.2 HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20 BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML obfuscation + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 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 + -1.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-Headers-End: 1SZPJy-0003rp-Qh +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks? +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:30:59 -0000 + +--0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 + +I'd like to garner consensus on whether anyone else thinks it desirable to +have a flag option for bitcoin to punish blocks for not including +transactions. I notice there are already pro-miner options, such as the +restricting the relaying of free transactions, and so including an option +to restrict relaying of blocks from "stingy" miners to balance against the +current bias, so that the default bitcoin client can be run as much +pro-miner as pro-non-miner. + +On Monday, May 28, 2012, rebroad@gmail.com wrote: + +> What i think this thread reveals is whether a bitcoin client is pro-miner +> or pro-non-miner. What i think is needed is a fork where one benefits +> miners (e.g. Limits relaying of free transactions, as has been added to the +> current default client), and one that benefits non-miners (e.g. Limits +> relaying of blocks not including free transactions). Then people can vote +> based on the client they use. +> +> It seems to me that the current main client is a pro-miner one, and +> possibly not what most people would vote for if they were given an easier +> choice. + +--0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +I'd like to garner consensus on whether anyone else thinks it desirable= + to have a flag option for bitcoin to punish blocks for not including trans= +actions. I notice there are already pro-miner options, such as the restrict= +ing the relaying of free transactions, and so including an option to restri= +ct relaying of blocks from "stingy" miners to balance against the= + current bias, so that the default bitcoin client can be run as much pro-mi= +ner as pro-non-miner.<br> +<br>On Monday, May 28, 2012, <a href=3D"mailto:rebroad@gmail.com">rebroad@g= +mail.com</a>=A0wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= +0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);= +border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> +What i think this thread reveals is whether a bitcoin client is pro-miner o= +r pro-non-miner. What i think is needed is a fork where one benefits miners= + (e.g. Limits relaying of free transactions, as has been added to the curre= +nt default client), and one that benefits non-miners (e.g. Limits relaying = +of blocks not including free transactions). Then people can vote based on t= +he client they use.<br> +<br>It seems to me that the current main client is a pro-miner one, and pos= +sibly not what most people would vote for if they were given an easier choi= +ce.</blockquote> + +--0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3-- + + |