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
|
Return-Path: <dscotese@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5684ECB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:27:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com
[209.85.212.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E951F1D9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so64397188wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=Hvfnv2gIkUk+KKg/g8wc7x5hgxbPI+wKcUdMHUxaqj0=;
b=xz8o86I8AtGNEew4poeNvyibl/JHzfXitIqrryl8RK5Zr+8sBnBrz7ey71jHCoVBSQ
sNggynTEBLvjV0X0Tmorfow39igzc/j4ySsOY8RcxNxRwIj5RRI4SclKqZkc9JhYPV/Z
XqkOWD1l5uGzmvf6WCQQcL47RPBjFK/rgsc5DcZu2j5D1WqhI9Q1ydF4Z1ghM6+6vjeu
gH4DZnNbNRxDUQ7jNK99bhGA5botYMOHJBdY1gZp0/8pFnuixx2PY5DJODmai6NJNuhv
yOMT6vHkaGZ0QMVyAwwBR5y7dTmZObjjE4/HWE/1BhIK5MlXpferVguYJmf26EfpJ9rz
4uxg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.187.244 with SMTP id fv20mr16287161wic.23.1441988845568;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dscotese@gmail.com
Received: by 10.27.211.132 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:27:25 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: q-9AH80hZbvF5m5C3dsvzqJdyZ4
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhd11-_LNJ-ba6NXmWBXz=yb+pFTmf9tHAgFW_m6S5jnfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37e46e90773051f7b30ef
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Days Destroyed as block selection heuristic
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:27:27 -0000
--001a11c37e46e90773051f7b30ef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Rather than (promising to, and when they don't actually, at least
pretending to) use the first-seen block, I propose that a more
sophisticated method of choosing which of two block solutions to accept.
Essentially, a miner receiving two solutions at the same height would
compute a weighted sum of bitcoin-days-destroyed (transactions received
earlier get higher weights) of whatever transactions are in a block *and
also* were in the miner's mempool *before* the first solution arrived.
Whichever block has more wins.
This strategy avoids allowing miners to use private transactions to mess
with the blockchain. It also makes an empty block far less attractive
because it is easily replaced, all the way until the next block locks it
in. Any block-selection heuristic can be gamed, but I believe that using a
weighted sum of BTCDD is harder to game than using block propagation timing.
I asked Can Bitcoin Days Destroyed be a better resolution mechanism for
competing blocks?
<http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/39226/can-bitcoin-days-destroyed-be-a-better-resolution-mechanism-for-competing-blocks>
on the stackexchange bitcoin site in order to collect objections to and
problems with this idea, and have not found any that I haven't addressed.
The best objection is that *maybe* empty blocks and selfish mining are
either good for bitcoin, or else they are so minimally bad that no effort
ought to be expended in preventing them.
If anyone here thinks this is a good idea, and no one can offer reasons
it's a bad idea, I will probably start working on an implementation. I'm
really slow though, so ping me if it looks like fun to you.
notplato
--001a11c37e46e90773051f7b30ef
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Rather than (promising to, and when they don't ac=
tually, at least pretending to) use the first-seen block, I propose that a =
more sophisticated method of choosing which of two block solutions to accep=
t.=C2=A0 Essentially, a miner receiving two solutions at the same height wo=
uld compute a weighted sum of bitcoin-days-destroyed (transactions received=
earlier get higher weights) of whatever transactions are in a block <i>and=
also</i> were in the miner's mempool <i>before</i> the first solution =
arrived.=C2=A0 Whichever block has more wins.<br><br></div>This strategy av=
oids allowing miners to use private transactions to mess with the blockchai=
n.=C2=A0 It also makes an empty block far less attractive because it is eas=
ily replaced, all the way until the next block locks it in.=C2=A0 Any block=
-selection heuristic can be gamed, but I believe that using a weighted sum =
of BTCDD is harder to game than using block propagation timing.<br><div><di=
v><br>I asked<a href=3D"http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/39226/ca=
n-bitcoin-days-destroyed-be-a-better-resolution-mechanism-for-competing-blo=
cks" class=3D""> Can Bitcoin Days Destroyed be a better resolution mechanis=
m for competing blocks?</a> on the stackexchange bitcoin site in order to c=
ollect objections to and problems with this idea, and have not found any th=
at I haven't addressed.=C2=A0 The best objection is that <i>maybe</i> e=
mpty blocks and selfish mining are either good for bitcoin, or else they ar=
e so minimally bad that no effort ought to be expended in preventing them.<=
br><br></div><div>If anyone here thinks this is a good idea, and no one can=
offer reasons it's a bad idea, I will probably start working on an imp=
lementation.=C2=A0 I'm really slow though, so ping me if it looks like =
fun to you.<br><br></div><div>notplato<br></div></div></div>
--001a11c37e46e90773051f7b30ef--
|
