Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B31231595 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:48:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com (mail-vk0-f52.google.com [209.85.213.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6E9294 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so33702887vkf.3 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:48:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=0iv5lWvOggCKKwAFahmLaGi5YPdzh6eiUVfuib3aKhY=; b=q0P8QFsbU3cIkYKwnFMcR5+i/8ETg+lebw9TGdVWVzubngvA1vJYujTDayAofKYmgC JgI2IuikjOS2RTwL/3ALLuClC5ifqq7Ksd/rQJwCUYjFKEsMtblZEbxQ0+e9wE4M/PEU fTIBih3+UPem58luQXOaq4MeYeGnBrjNWRkVujBKDtrOe6mnU2fgGWIMSW5hQi2Gsv35 1VHiiNmnNqnQwO1OeSZBMXGzFE/Ec+6gbBYLhis/GbO/qnDlE+pW5VzAvgljGlGxUn7F 6xFl8nkPissW2BhKRrDiA3Iis1xwULCTrtID/8lB0OwMVSVD7fyLmLCyQvH3Ezhs+gWU bpJA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.5.205 with SMTP id 196mr23622386vkf.88.1443034118243; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:48:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:48:38 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143dda0044aaf05206e9065 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weak block thoughts... X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:48:39 -0000 --001a1143dda0044aaf05206e9065 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Imagine miners always pre-announce the blocks they're working on to their > peers, and peers validate those 'weak blocks' as quickly as they are able. > > Because weak blocks are pre-validated, when a full-difficulty block based > on a previously announced weak block is found, block propagation should be > insanely fast-- basically, as fast as a single packet can be relayed across > the network the whole network could be mining on the new block. > > I don't see any barrier to making accepting the full-difficulty block and > CreateNewBlock() insanely fast, and if those operations take just a > microsecond or three, miners will have an incentive to create blocks with > fee-paying transactions that weren't in the last block, rather than mining > empty blocks. > You can create these blocks in advance too. - receive weak block - validate - create child block It becomes a pure array lookup to get the new header that builds on top of that block. The child blocks would need to be updated as the memory pool changes though. > A miner could try to avoid validation work by just taking a weak block > announced by somebody else, replacing the coinbase and re-computing the > merkle root, and then mining. They will be at a slight disadvantage to > fully validating miners, though, because they WOULD have to mine empty > blocks between the time a full block is found and a fully-validating miner > announced their next weak block. > This also speeds up propagation for the miner. The first weak block that is broadcast could end up being copied by many other miners. A miner who is copying a block could send coinbase + original header if he hits a block. Weak blocks that are just coinbase + header could have lower POW requirements, since they use up much less bandwidth. Miners would mostly copy other miners once they had verified their blocks. The IBLT system works well here. A miner could pick a weak block that is close to what it actually wants to broadcast. > Weak block announcements are great for the network; they give transaction > creators a pretty good idea of whether or not their transactions are likely > to be confirmed in the next block. > Aggregator nodes could offer a service to show/prove how many weak blocks that the transaction has been accepted in. > And if we're smart about implementing them, they shouldn't increase > bandwidth or CPU usage significantly, because all the weak blocks at a > given point in time are likely to contain the same transactions. > This assumes other compression systems for handling block propagation. > > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a1143dda0044aaf05206e9065 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<= br>
Imagine miners always pr= e-announce the blocks they're working on to their peers, and peers vali= date those 'weak blocks' as quickly as they are able.

=
Because weak blocks are pre-validated, when a full-difficulty bl= ock based on a previously announced weak block is found, block propagation = should be insanely fast-- basically, as fast as a single packet can be rela= yed across the network the whole network could be mining on the new block.<= /div>

I don't see any barrier to making accepting th= e full-difficulty block and CreateNewBlock() insanely fast, and if those op= erations take just a microsecond or three, miners will have an incentive to= create blocks with fee-paying transactions that weren't in the last bl= ock, rather than mining empty blocks.
You can create these blocks in advance too.

= - receive weak block
- validate
- create child = block

It becomes a pure array lookup to get t= he new header that builds on top of that block.=C2=A0 The child blocks woul= d need to be updated as the memory pool changes though.
=C2= =A0
A miner could= try to avoid validation work by just taking a weak block announced by some= body else, replacing the coinbase and re-computing the merkle root, and the= n mining. They will be at a slight disadvantage to fully validating miners,= though, because they WOULD have to mine empty blocks between the time a fu= ll block is found and a fully-validating miner announced their next weak bl= ock.

This also speeds up propag= ation for the miner.=C2=A0 The first weak block that is broadcast could end= up being copied by many other miners.

A miner who is cop= ying a block could send coinbase + original header if he hits a block.=C2= =A0 Weak blocks that are just coinbase + header could have lower POW requir= ements, since they use up much less bandwidth.

Miners wou= ld mostly copy other miners once they had verified their blocks.=C2=A0 The = IBLT system works well here.=C2=A0 A miner could pick a weak block that is = close to what it actually wants to broadcast.
=C2=A0
Weak block announcements = are great for the network; they give transaction creators a pretty good ide= a of whether or not their transactions are likely to be confirmed in the ne= xt block.

Aggregator nodes coul= d offer a service to show/prove how many weak blocks that the transaction h= as been accepted in.
=C2=A0
And if we're smart about implementing them, t= hey shouldn't increase bandwidth or CPU usage significantly, because al= l the weak blocks at a given point in time are likely to contain the same t= ransactions.

This assumes other= compression systems for handling block propagation.
=C2=A0

--
--
Gavin Andresen
<= /div>


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a1143dda0044aaf05206e9065--