diff options
| author | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> | 2012-05-24 17:00:42 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2012-05-24 21:00:53 +0000 |
| commit | b70bc639fd8d1ebbf98b627fb66b5f44a1a4c527 (patch) | |
| tree | 29e445fec9f5808057bf2bc98b0c357729514b54 | |
| parent | 6efd4d4db928121df261d1c148ccee8d3f997895 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-b70bc639fd8d1ebbf98b627fb66b5f44a1a4c527.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-b70bc639fd8d1ebbf98b627fb66b5f44a1a4c527.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
| -rw-r--r-- | b6/cd32e0b7b837dfd63303fc7b759fe96d0bb110 | 101 |
1 files changed, 101 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/b6/cd32e0b7b837dfd63303fc7b759fe96d0bb110 b/b6/cd32e0b7b837dfd63303fc7b759fe96d0bb110 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a92722f11 --- /dev/null +++ b/b6/cd32e0b7b837dfd63303fc7b759fe96d0bb110 @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1SXf9R-0003zB-MR + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 24 May 2012 21:00:53 +0000 +X-ACL-Warn: +Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]) + by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1SXf9M-0000Y4-TA + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 24 May 2012 21:00:53 +0000 +Received: by lags15 with SMTP id s15so260549lag.34 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Thu, 24 May 2012 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=google.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date + :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; + bh=mTAV5261ul33JCgXIKv9TPY2WqFPip3+MvpbeW9YC5o=; + b=MMCgU3IIH5hL5vwmYZ8ftCn1607tOibAXLD6zL8KXKe9rgbsmufBbXDfRY1wNwmHJx + zw2UAAP5ePaKfI0m0fdg6Td/wqObq7BJnTkuhRdUpbKbDQD3iQgfxSmycsFUQ2LtBQOS + fENiqmTZxeS4EvLvMqgfoXq43FqaZg5XURRxpPF4u82JHark7TMaI/wrOFEr9et+apYx + CyP66s3CiETCjO5V8Ha4mQoVIH0VNDk36TPP2J8/YwfjDuvmDLc8gUk2C47t9M4hjoMm + bBclgtKp/AKKa85z7xDgR9CFZo9gUrKp5rSs7U8EDo5gAfQpGYVK1bN8n26gdnJlkegQ + AWEA== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.152.46.6 with SMTP id r6mr978214lam.7.1337893242092; Thu, 24 + May 2012 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.114.0.103 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2012 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT) +X-Originating-IP: [99.43.178.25] +In-Reply-To: <201205242031.39804.luke@dashjr.org> +References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com> + <201205242031.39804.luke@dashjr.org> +Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 17:00:42 -0400 +Message-ID: <CA+8xBpcO2h-rZnDA4i+9dBxUmx3Q+sjTti_M7uuM2t-O9yu1nA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> +To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmkCfx7wv7ktQBe9rF8lt1aTrxuF8ZQd45n9X0RMSGZRza8y7jCKKckNFPHZBebtcdQtbaZ +X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-Headers-End: 1SXf9M-0000Y4-TA +Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +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: Thu, 24 May 2012 21:00:53 -0000 + +On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote: +> These are problematic for legitimate miners: +> 1) The freedom to reject transactions based on fees or spam filters, is +> severely restricted. As mentioned in other replies, this is an important point +> of Bitcoin's design. +> 1b) This punishes miners with superior transaction spam filtering. As with all +> spam filtering, it is often an "arms race" and therefore the filter rules must +> be kept private by the miners, and therefore cannot be disclosed for the +> validating clients to take into consideration. + +This is simply not true given current available data, i.e. the current +blockchain and ongoing not-spam transaction rate/pool. + + +> The argument that these are not rule changes is flawed: +> 1) As of right now, 99% of the network runs a single client. Anything this +> client rejects does de facto become a rule change. + +According to your own numbers even, this is not true. 99% of the +network runs a wide variety of rules and versions. Even with a +"critical" security announcement, the percentage of those running the +latest version is not large. + + +> 2) Even if there were a diverse ecosystem of clients in place, discouragement +> rules that potentially affect legitimate miners significantly mess with the +> odds of finding a block. +> 3) If legitimate miners do not adopt counter-rules to bypass these new +> restrictions, the illegitimate miners are left with an even larger percentage +> of blocks found. + +Miners are not the -only- ones that get a say in what is spam, and +what is not. If miners are generating garbage, network users have the +right to veto that garbage. + +-- +Jeff Garzik +exMULTI, Inc. +jgarzik@exmulti.com + + |