summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorGregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>2012-05-29 11:33:13 -0400
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2012-05-29 15:33:24 +0000
commitedc70367cdd7391178b0a73accaf7217e9ec370e (patch)
tree0364b6e36b13a2b2c9fc7c454fc6be0089f4cd11
parent4d09966be664c85a9415c8e3aaa50487048e5034 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-edc70367cdd7391178b0a73accaf7217e9ec370e.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-edc70367cdd7391178b0a73accaf7217e9ec370e.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
-rw-r--r--5c/144142934d0038f3e2db832c6561e9bea2e6cc79
1 files changed, 79 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5c/144142934d0038f3e2db832c6561e9bea2e6cc b/5c/144142934d0038f3e2db832c6561e9bea2e6cc
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1b6c63da7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/5c/144142934d0038f3e2db832c6561e9bea2e6cc
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1SZOQG-00020A-8b
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 29 May 2012 15:33:24 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.216.52; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-qa0-f52.google.com;
+Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52])
+ by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1SZOQA-0007vk-TP
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 29 May 2012 15:33:24 +0000
+Received: by qabj34 with SMTP id j34so1865354qab.11
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Tue, 29 May 2012 08:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Received: by 10.224.44.136 with SMTP id a8mr12456759qaf.34.1338305593250; Tue,
+ 29 May 2012 08:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: by 10.229.55.83 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
+In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
+Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:33:13 -0400
+Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTRKGPGv5UyLNXYbYOPQD-ogWykt0KHQsQZ6BuU2dr=NA@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
+To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
+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
+ (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ -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
+ 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
+X-Headers-End: 1SZOQA-0007vk-TP
+Cc: Bitcoin Development <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: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:33:24 -0000
+
+On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
+> There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
+> empty blocks.
+
+In the last 2016 blocks, as I write this, there are only 35 1 txn blocks.
+
+This is about 1.73%, which wouldn't be surprising just from timing
+alone. Moreover, a fair amount (I didn't measure the percentage)
+appear to be mined by Eligius=E2=80=94 Luke does some clever pre-computatio=
+n
+of the hash tree for faster distribution right after new blocks.
+
+Resources expended on fancy (and potentially risky) techno-economic
+hacks to discourage empty blocks would probably be better spent
+writing very fast transaction tree generating code.
+
+Can we kill this thread now?
+
+