Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VCV0v-0004h5-Q0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:33:25 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VCV0s-0007RG-Hp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:33:25 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i18so3485171oag.29 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:33:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.230.163 with SMTP id sz3mr2400055obc.81.1377178397124; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.80.165 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:33:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1377120278.34996.YahooMailNeo@web124501.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6e1e64615be421f47a74bcc427a13485@astutium.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:33:16 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: opbzQ_aeYzkShnhtmS6Ak5auYeU Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2f63a272d4e04e48955ce X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1VCV0s-0007RG-Hp Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:33:26 -0000 --001a11c2f63a272d4e04e48955ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That would be annoying for testing. Regtest mode allows you to create a new block by just running "setgenerate true" (it switches itself off after creating a block). If you had to set up a complicated set of separate programs just to do regtest mode that'd be a step backwards, IMO. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Maciej Trebacz wrote: > > Will removing "getwork" from the client impact the "setgenerate" RPC > call? > > I.e. would you still be able to generate coins on testnet-in-a-box this > way, > > or would you need a dedicated miner for that? testnet-in-a-box is very > > useful for testing and easy to setup, it would be great if it stays that > way > > Yes, that is currently being discussed in a separate pull request. My > pull request does not impact setgenerate, but an added proposal does > remove the internal miner completely. > > -- > Jeff Garzik > Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and > AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights, > analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management. > Visit us today! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --001a11c2f63a272d4e04e48955ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That would be annoying for testing. Regtest mode allows yo= u to create a new block by just running "setgenerate true" (it sw= itches itself off after creating a block). If you had to set up a complicat= ed set of separate programs just to do regtest mode that'd be a step ba= ckwards, IMO.


On Thu, Aug 2= 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:=
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Maciej Trebacz <maciej@bitalo.com> wrote:
> Will removing "getwork" from the client impact the "set= generate" RPC call?
> I.e. would you still be able to generate coins on testnet-in-a-box thi= s way,
> or would you need a dedicated miner for that? testnet-in-a-box is very=
> useful for testing and easy to setup, it would be great if it stays th= at way

Yes, that is currently being discussed in a separate pull request. = =C2=A0My
pull request does not impact setgenerate, but an added proposal does
remove the internal miner completely.

--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/

-----------------------------= -------------------------------------------------
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management. Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam= pad/clk?id=3D48897511&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--001a11c2f63a272d4e04e48955ce--