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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1UnbBt-00028P-7z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:49 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UnbBs-00081m-7e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:49 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F4CF27A2966;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:28 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.8-gentoo; KDE/4.10.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <20130527111149.GB8955@tilt> <201306102123.15732.luke@dashjr.org>
<20130614200654.GB11509@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130614200654.GB11509@petertodd.org>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201306142105.29597.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1UnbBs-00081m-7e
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Decentralizing mining
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:49 -0000
On Friday, June 14, 2013 8:06:54 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:23:14PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > Might as well just use higher difficulty shares (each one audited) for
> > the same effect. Block proposals allow the miner to tell the pool its
> > transaction set once (per txset change) for any number of shares.
>
> That's a good point - the current practice most pools seem to follow of
> about a share per second seems very excessive to me. On the other hand,
> it does have good user optics. The right solution might be something
> akin to P2Pool where the UI level is telling the user shares are being
> found so it's clear "stuff is happening", but under the hood only a
> small subset are ever sent to the pool.
Share rate is relevant to more than user information - it also affects the
variance of reward/payout. I disagree with claiming shares are found when
they're not sent to the pool - this makes auditing and troubleshooting more
difficult; for example, see the GUIMiner bug where it reports shares despite
misinterpreting the pool's target and submitting nothing at all (this happens
when the pool uses pdiff 1).
> > > # Pool work
> > >
> > > So does eliopool already accept arbitrary shares like this and do the
> > > correct accounting already? (IE adjust share amount based on fees?)
> > > What happens when the pool doesn't get the share directly, but does
> > > see the new block?
> > >
> > > + possible protocol extensions
> >
> > I don't follow.
>
> What part don't you follow?
I don't understand the first two questions here at all.
Luke
|
