Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VBVu1-0006VP-HF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:18:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.128.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.128.178; envelope-from=frankf44@gmail.com; helo=mail-ve0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ve0-f178.google.com ([209.85.128.178]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VBVu0-0005c0-Do for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:18:13 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ox1so3280250veb.23 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.59.8.232 with SMTP id dn8mr14756691ved.8.1376943486900; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.165.201 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:18:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:18:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: Frank F Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd75d5c69a2c704e452a3f7 X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) 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 (frankf44[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (frankf44[at]gmail.com) 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header 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 X-Headers-End: 1VBVu0-0005c0-Do Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind 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: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:18:13 -0000 --047d7bd75d5c69a2c704e452a3f7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This sounds like an ideal compromise. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Frank F wrote: > > If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be > addressed > > and fixed instead of outright abandoned. > > They have been, resulting in a replacement called "getblocktemplate" > which (presumably) almost everyone talking to bitcoin(d|-qt) has been > using for a long time. > > I think removing the ability to mine in the stock package would be > regrettable, but to be honest we already don't have it for the > mainnet. I think we should do as Jeff suggests and remove getwork. But > I think we should also package along a proper getblocktemplate miner > to remove any doubt that we're providing a full network node here. (I > note that the choice of miner is also easy: Regardless of people's > preferences which way or another, AFAIK only luke's bfgminer stuff can > mine directly against bitcoin getblocktemplate with no pool in the > middle. It also supports a huge variety of hardware, and a superset > of our target platforms) > -- *MONEY IS OVER!* IF YOU WANT IT ===================================================== The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money. -Serj Tankian --047d7bd75d5c69a2c704e452a3f7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This sounds like an ideal compromise.


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:16= PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:= 09 PM, Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com= > wrote:
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be add= ressed
> and fixed instead of outright abandoned.

They have been, resulting in a replacement called "getblocktempl= ate"
which (presumably) almost everyone talking to bitcoin(d|-qt) has been
using for a long time.

I think removing the ability to mine in the stock package would be
regrettable, but to be honest we already don't have it for the
mainnet. I think we should do as Jeff suggests and remove getwork. But
I think we should also package along a proper getblocktemplate miner
to remove any doubt that we're providing a full network node here. =A0(= I
note that the choice of miner is also easy: =A0Regardless of people's preferences which way or another, AFAIK only luke's bfgminer stuff can<= br> mine directly against bitcoin getblocktemplate with no pool in the
middle. =A0It also supports a huge variety of hardware, and a superset
of our target platforms)



--
MONEY IS OVER!
=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0IF YOU WANT= IT
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of mon= ey.
-Serj Tankian
--047d7bd75d5c69a2c704e452a3f7--