MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4q_Ubrk6a15Q4uB3MT0PHGnvZt3yPMOWCdPhWf_WGH-tA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgRwfQNYxCmDPAnVudyAti9v8PPXQjxe9M13pmrFxKcSCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1vBRMYm6rLuqzvOxD0eABE4saF44JzZjMF3iUU==Nz0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<871tb16diz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CADvTj4q_Ubrk6a15Q4uB3MT0PHGnvZt3yPMOWCdPhWf_WGH-tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 06:26:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQQ+ZTUXXXRJWP-RjP+ehsUTrxa7Vy-QrZ-3Q6Offz=5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
To: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft)
Precedence: list

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:47 AM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think something that anyone who isn't validating should be aware of is
> that cgminer(which powers the vast majority of the current mining network)
> doesn't allow for a pool to revert to mining on the previous block due to
> the way chain tracking is implemented.

An interesting potential use for the flag suggested in this draft
would be allowing non-monotone mining for non-verified blocks.

I could add a recommendation for that as well.