1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <Goss.Brian@mayo.edu>) id 1VBWUT-0008C6-3Q
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:55:53 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail10.mayo.edu ([129.176.212.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VBWUR-0006Ek-Dq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:55:53 +0000
Received: from roedlp004a.mayo.edu (HELO mail10.mayo.edu) ([129.176.158.14])
by ironport10-dlp.mayo.edu with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2013 15:22:29 -0500
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAEp9ElKBsNQ1/2dsb2JhbABRCIMFNVG/MoEkFnSCJAEBAQMBAQEBNxQgEAcGAQgHCgMBAQEBCgISCSgGAQkBFAkJAQQTCBIDBIddAwkGDJNyl0INV4EpjWSBLwwEgQYCBjiDFXcDlR1egxaLAIUogxyBcTk
Received: from mhro1a.mayo.edu ([129.176.212.53])
by ironport10.mayo.edu with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2013 15:22:28 -0500
Received: from MSGPEXCEI06A.mfad.mfroot.org (msgpexcei06a.mayo.edu
[129.176.249.167]) by mhro1a.mayo.edu with ESMTP id
BT-MMP-25882975 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:22:28 -0500
Received: from MSGPEXCEI26B.mfad.mfroot.org ([169.254.4.24]) by
MSGPEXCEI06A.mfad.mfroot.org ([169.254.3.69]) with mapi id
14.02.0342.004; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:22:28 -0500
From: "Goss, Brian C., M.D." <Goss.Brian@mayo.edu>
To: "'bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net'"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Thread-Topic: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind
Thread-Index: Ac6dGdKp7cPY9D7lS6qFUPkResvhig==
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:22:27 +0000
Message-ID: <FFE335820B1BFF4F8E8619F446F2D87F4C1A2E7B@MSGPEXCEI26B.mfad.mfroot.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.128.209.13]
x-esetresult: clean, is OK
x-esetid: F99C793ED61C3634A3DA21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-2.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money
X-Headers-End: 1VBWUR-0006Ek-Dq
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:55:53 -0000
What if we have a massive (like many orders of magnitude) drop in network h=
arsh rate? Might such a function be useful to salvage the (non-functioning=
) network? Same for IRC bootstrapping. How do we pick ourselves up off the=
ground in case of the equivalent of a great depression in network hash rat=
e (or some jerk spending $100M just to drive the difficulty up and then tur=
ning his hardware off?).
-----Original Message-----
From: bitcoin-development-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:bitcoin-dev=
elopment-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of bitcoin-development-re=
quest@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 3:16 PM
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 27, Issue 28
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "R=
e: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Jeff Garzik)
2. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Frank F)
3. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Luke-Jr)
4. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Pieter Wuille)
5. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Matt Corallo)
6. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Frank F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:27:01 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CAJHLa0MnnWw=3DqiYC0nJcY=3DBdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to remov=
e "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to talk t=
o bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show that attempts=
to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and problems.
On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are avail=
able for testnet, obviating the continued need to support getwork.
However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted to pok=
e the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a driving use =
case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We don't want to br=
eak anybody needlessly.
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:09:41 -0500
From: Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
now, is not a good path to start down.
If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
addressed and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to
> remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
>
> On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
> directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to
> talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show
> that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and
> problems.
>
> On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
> Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are
> available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support
> getwork.
>
> However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted
> to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a
> driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We
> don't want to break anybody needlessly.
>
> --
> 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=3D48897511&iu=3D/4140/ostg.=
clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--=20
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.co=
m/>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +0000
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <201308192013.02806.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-15"
On Monday, August 19, 2013 8:09:41 PM Frank F wrote:
> I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to sa=
y
> that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this tha=
t
> favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows wha=
t
> mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice th=
e
> ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> now, is not a good path to start down.
>=20
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
> addressed and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
You missed getblocktemplate. It does everything getwork did and more.
Individual solo miners aren't being locked out at all. This is just removal=
of=20
a protocol that has been obsolete for well over a year now.
Luke
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:14:36 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CAPg+sBjMdZfHpZrvHwMx6oQsS0yJaXVjTnyRwf6VCdnWTHQZaw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to sa=
y
> that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this tha=
t
> favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows wha=
t
> mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice th=
e
> ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> now, is not a good path to start down.
>
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be addres=
sed
> and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.
It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to
see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and
even modify it.
The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an
obsolete API for doing so.
--=20
Pieter
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:15:08 -0400
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <1376943308.27037.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8"
ACK, I see no reason to leave broken things in that a) arent necessary
and b) no one has the developer resources to fix.
Matt
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 12:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to
> remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
>=20
> On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
> directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to
> talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show
> that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and
> problems.
>=20
> On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
> Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are
> available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support
> getwork.
>=20
> However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted
> to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a
> driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We
> don't want to break anybody needlessly.
>=20
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:16:17 -0500
From: Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CALxyHsV=3DLWY+TzZG-XBQ6HNhxFEezjFhW++aJ7oVbVGEJWW0nw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Thank you for setting me straight. Please forgive my ignorance.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>wro=
te:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to
> say
> > that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this
> that
> > favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs th=
at
> > bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> > tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows
> what
> > mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice
> the
> > ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficien=
t
> > now, is not a good path to start down.
> >
> > If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
> addressed
> > and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
>
> They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.
> It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to
> see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and
> even modify it.
>
> The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an
> obsolete API for doing so.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
--=20
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.co=
m/>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and=20
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,=20
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.=20
Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D48897511&iu=3D/4140/ostg.cl=
ktrk
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
End of Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 27, Issue 28
***************************************************
|