Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R8l5m-0000dF-IE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:45:54 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1R8l5l-0002C9-Oz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:45:54 +0000 Received: by yxj17 with SMTP id 17so7620197yxj.34 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:45:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.131.37 with SMTP id l25mr52177778yhi.76.1317181548107; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.33 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:45:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [99.43.178.25] In-Reply-To: <4E80D591.2080100@nilsschneider.net> References: <4E80D591.2080100@nilsschneider.net> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:45:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Nils Schneider Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1R8l5l-0002C9-Oz Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Deprecating "midstate" in getwork? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:45:54 -0000 On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Nils Schneider wrote: > I'd like to simplify the internal reference miner and remove all > dependencies on cryptopp (it's the only place we use cryptopp instead of > OpenSSL). > > Unfortunately, cryptopp is also used to calculate getwork "midstate". > This field is redundant and the miner could easily calculate it from the > blockheader so I'd like to remove it. > > Any thoughts? Where should such a change should be announced so all > miners can be upgraded? I think one of the pools was already working on something like that? I'm pretty sure it can be removed, and I'm pretty sure somebody has already field-tested that guess. -- Jeff Garzik exMULTI, Inc. jgarzik@exmulti.com