Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.51; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f51.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0MnnWw=qiYC0nJcY=BdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:16:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQRcfbe+3A6_t4s8BJRaWwmLdKkGG1ePmG+Epm5W6CxdQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
	bitcoind
Precedence: list

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 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)