Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB8BB159D for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:33:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48EA2164 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:33:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 4950E14029E; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:33:08 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Gavin Andresen , Gregory Maxwell In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:41:03 +0930 Message-ID: <87wpvg39lk.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weak block thoughts... X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:33:12 -0000 Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev writes: > I don't see any incentive problems, either. Worst case is more miners > decide to skip validation and just mine a variation of the > highest-fee-paying weak block they've seen, but that's not a disaster-- > invalid blocks will still get rejected by all the non-miners running full > nodes. That won't help SPV nodes, unfortunately. > If we did see that behavior, I bet it would be a good strategy for a big > hashrate miner to dedicate some of their hashrate to announcing invalid > weak blocks; if you can get your lazy competitors to mine it, then you > win.... We already see non-validating mining, but they do empty blocks. This just makes it more attractive in the future, since you can collect fees too. But I think it's clear we'll eventually need some UTXO commitment so full nodes can tell SPV nodes about bad blocks. Cheers, Rusty.