MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1659997.Te2m0CHHuS@garp>
References: <CACiOHGxpTEOzUBovuJstNEVQOpD+Yv0JivuyeOFsba_jhdyydw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1659997.Te2m0CHHuS@garp>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:27:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgLw+0LZJkQ-F2xi_t11dpJoWvTDQnyMjFPB+XfD98RvYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reasons to add sync flags to Bitcoin
Precedence: list

--94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

   - Flags will be mined selfishly, and not published until the advantage
   gained from withholding is less than the mining reward.  This effect may
   kill the decentralization features, since big miners will be the only ones
   that can selfish-mine flags.  Indeed, collusion would be encouraged... just
   ship the flag to the miners you do business with, and no one else.   At the
   expense of loss of flag revenue, your in-group would gain a massive
   advantage in main-chain mining.


On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > #Basic idea:
> >
> > Ideally, all miners would begin hashing the next block at exactly the
> same
> > time. Miners with a head start are more profitable, and the techniques
> that
> > help miners receive and validate blocks quickly create centralization
> > pressure.
> >
> > What if there was something that acted like the starting flag at a race,
> > which could suddenly wave and cause all of the miners to simultaneously
> > begin hashing the next block?
> >
> > #Implementation:
> >
> > Let a sync flag be a message consisting of:
> >
> > 1. Hash of the previous block.
> > 2. Bitcoin address
> > 3. Nonce
> >
> > This tiny message could propagate through the network at maximum speed.
> If
> > miners had to include the hash of this flag in the next block, then all
> > miners wait for this flag, and when it suddenly spread through the
> network,
> > all miners could simultaneously begin hashing the next block.
>
> What you describe in this part of your message can be done with no forks
> whatsoever and I think that this is enough. Don't really see the reason for
> any change in funding.
>
> The idea of sending out a block header is essentially what I called
> "optimistic mining" and has been described in more detail in my blog here;
> http://zander.github.io/posts/Innovation%20-%20OnlineScaling/
>
> The video explains with graphics too...
>
> You may find this interesting :)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><ul><li>Flags will be mine=
d selfishly, and not published until the advantage gained from withholding =
is less than the mining reward.=C2=A0 This effect may kill the decentraliza=
tion features, since big miners will be the only ones that can selfish-mine=
 flags.=C2=A0 Indeed, collusion would be encouraged... just ship the flag t=
o the miners you do business with, and no one else.=C2=A0=C2=A0 At the expe=
nse of loss of flag revenue, your in-group would gain a massive advantage i=
n main-chain mining.<br></li></ul>
</div>
</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tu=
e, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">&gt; #Basic idea:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Ideally, all miners would begin hashing the next block at exactly the =
same<br>
&gt; time. Miners with a head start are more profitable, and the techniques=
 that<br>
&gt; help miners receive and validate blocks quickly create centralization<=
br>
&gt; pressure.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; What if there was something that acted like the starting flag at a rac=
e,<br>
&gt; which could suddenly wave and cause all of the miners to simultaneousl=
y<br>
&gt; begin hashing the next block?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; #Implementation:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Let a sync flag be a message consisting of:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 1. Hash of the previous block.<br>
&gt; 2. Bitcoin address<br>
&gt; 3. Nonce<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This tiny message could propagate through the network at maximum speed=
. If<br>
&gt; miners had to include the hash of this flag in the next block, then al=
l<br>
&gt; miners wait for this flag, and when it suddenly spread through the net=
work,<br>
&gt; all miners could simultaneously begin hashing the next block.<br>
<br>
What you describe in this part of your message can be done with no forks<br=
>
whatsoever and I think that this is enough. Don&#39;t really see the reason=
 for<br>
any change in funding.<br>
<br>
The idea of sending out a block header is essentially what I called<br>
&quot;optimistic mining&quot; and has been described in more detail in my b=
log here;<br>
<a href=3D"http://zander.github.io/posts/Innovation%20-%20OnlineScaling/" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://zander.github.io/posts/Innovatio=
n%20-%20OnlineScaling/</a><br>
<br>
The video explains with graphics too...<br>
<br>
You may find this interesting :)<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c060f20b987d505388d3658--