Return-Path: Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F29C0051 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3854886B92 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:12:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QUhZoAcfI71A for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:12:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from newmail.dtrt.org (li1228-87.members.linode.com [45.79.129.87]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3081886B50 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:12:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from harding by newmail.dtrt.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kM7Bv-0003F4-2q; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 06:12:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 06:11:23 -0400 From: "David A. Harding" To: Mike Brooks , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20200926101123.utnxzs7kx5ozwedm@ganymede> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="asp52wwvwmrhw6x5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Floating-Point Nakamoto Consensus X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:12:34 -0000 --asp52wwvwmrhw6x5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:35:36AM -0700, Mike Brooks via bitcoin-dev wrote: > - with a fitness test you have a 100% chance of a new block from being > accepted, and only a 50% or less chance for replacing a block which has > already been mined. This is all about keeping incentives moving forward. FYI, I think this topic has been discussed on the list before (in response to the selfish mining paper). See this proposal: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-November/003583.html Of its responses, I thought these two stood out in particular: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-November/003584.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-November/003588.html I think there may be some related contemporary discussion from BitcoinTalk as well; here's a post that's not directly related to the idea of using hash values but which does describe some of the challenges in replacing first seen as the tip disambiguation method. There may be other useful posts in that thread---I didn't take the time to skim all 11 pages. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3476697#msg3476697 -Dave --asp52wwvwmrhw6x5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEgxUkqkMp0LnoXjCr2dtBqWwiadMFAl9vE8sACgkQ2dtBqWwi adPiSQ/+PmPfcB9Yv4ZQf0W6u5kzUMmdxBy9colymyGppv5YA5FOd2rGnG7gCxWX 6rQqcAUQEMxSnIebjhHxQkxkMed4lvZSMJ8ujdk7k7Z7VuKBLx/T6Nb0XPdSRu0W t2Fjql3B6kA523fIBaKybZFZ7PZwOv72zC29j+qKLJlb4zkvaNG8xAqsc5VfcMMf FwGrik0aTJWPS4PHNAr8CCIUyHfzw3OKEINDj6xA4pOYM0z3CX96bnjVfedgbwox Apt3GSoMEb0T6taEmErQ1ROVPkyDdjJbZNfsGUKVy8ZY9L/9joyqjeAovBtTN+EK RwI/P593tCUkNUEUbQUk8HjqIEpN9MT1R7EVDRk0M+6huO/vC244UFeQgIvf/Ws3 SZz3M6Ly82pHZl50H0v7vFVO0j02uChTklglcSoZH/Kf+Q3TlUgP4d/8uJDOUEO5 nQ4rUSRlQvCkIQgbXhGJct/N5tewyz/0lIbXgAT09yRKFFB59fq82fuo0XaRn0V8 wAd/Hr3IEG4qAffGsBJbep6DyK9n7gS3OJbpTs/vvBWiRLFxa+HrG3PssESe0ljg DBi9TjhET9aLRPDViXBI1DUEXs062uBMwa7dNY6frw0xTC7aDVMEouFaypE0HRvD 8qvzD9wetDWinraYPyzxR1I+FqjfW+7e9Z7D5EqdoMmm4VG26LA= =ExkZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --asp52wwvwmrhw6x5--