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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Sta0l-0006OJ-AD
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:58:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Sta0k-0001uv-Gg
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:58:31 +0000
Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so2770035wib.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.81.165 with SMTP id b5mr4539166wiy.17.1343116704401; Tue,
24 Jul 2012 00:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.19.13 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0JK9qBKZu7YWeQCBAjT1Ur05BQ26A5NdLCwD6Wuyc0nQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201207222052.28579.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABsx9T0JK9qBKZu7YWeQCBAjT1Ur05BQ26A5NdLCwD6Wuyc0nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:58:24 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: jjVWaZLIoBwDKxn3XrEFkRggH3c
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0NMmwWN1U3V_hha7+C8meKWK_szhh+6xP7VQMbFTLoqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Sta0k-0001uv-Gg
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering block version number use
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: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:58:31 -0000
> That'd be 7 bytes of nonce in the block header, which is
> 72,057,594,037,927,936 ~ 72 petahashes = 72,000 terahashes
>
> So: the changes for version 2 blocks would be "has height in the
> coinbase, and has a 1-byte version number with a 3-byte extranonce."
I don't understand why more nonce bits are necessary. Is it really
impossible for a multi-core CPU to keep up with the merkle root
re-calculation and keep an ASIC miner fed, or is this working around a
performance bottleneck somewhere else?
|
