summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/5c/9910bc4b755414b814957273869341c2efa8c5
blob: 8f8ae862ae3aacd152f02d86a93ad0b7c7330cf9 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1VBVsN-0006O2-66
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:16:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.51; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f51.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1VBVsM-0005XQ-Dg
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:16:31 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id es20so3667147lab.38
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.163.100 with SMTP id yh4mr1652428lab.31.1376943383640;
	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.72 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0MnnWw=qiYC0nJcY=BdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:16:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQRcfbe+3A6_t4s8BJRaWwmLdKkGG1ePmG+Epm5W6CxdQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	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: 1VBVsM-0005XQ-Dg
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 20:16:31 -0000

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be addressed
> and fixed instead of outright abandoned.

They have been, resulting in a replacement called "getblocktemplate"
which (presumably) almost everyone talking to bitcoin(d|-qt) has been
using for a long time.

I think removing the ability to mine in the stock package would be
regrettable, but to be honest we already don't have it for the
mainnet. I think we should do as Jeff suggests and remove getwork. But
I think we should also package along a proper getblocktemplate miner
to remove any doubt that we're providing a full network node here.  (I
note that the choice of miner is also easy:  Regardless of people's
preferences which way or another, AFAIK only luke's bfgminer stuff can
mine directly against bitcoin getblocktemplate with no pool in the
middle.  It also supports a huge variety of hardware, and a superset
of our target platforms)