Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
	designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=198.252.153.129;
	envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net;
	helo=mx1.riseup.net; 
Message-ID: <68ffba5f8bc28bb7a9c2f4f7f15ee683.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <53B9E7D6.2050703@codehalo.com>
References: <10566815.3CllqoMfON@momentum> <53B6DB38.7010709@jerviss.org>
	<CAC1+kJOSAoz_BBaFnv4u-Dng7Y4h2tqOHSFRfuKvY87eBR71Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<53B714A8.1080603@codehalo.com>
	<CANEZrP3v3Racyt-b9_DLMKuQ8UMBkgEa8kfGmPjcSssmrDHkhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53B9E7D6.2050703@codehalo.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 23:12:42 -0700
From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
To: "Randi Joseph" <randi@codehalo.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] ASIC-proof mining
Precedence: list

Just as an aside to this lengthy convo, the Cryptonote-based BCN recently
had some interesting updates which made it easier for ordinary computers
(nothing special) to handle it.

I realize that's not Bitcoin, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

> Thanks Mike.
>
> Indeed, I am aware of current approach, which is why I was suggesting
> this as an alternative.
> I haven't thought about it enough, and perhaps it was too radical a
> rethinking - just wanted to see what the smarter minds thought.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> -Randi
>
> On 7/5/14, 4:43 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>
>>     Is it possible instead to allocate a portion of the reward to " a =
#
>> of
>>     runner up(s)" even though the runner-up(s) block will be orphaned?
>>
>>
>> There's really no concept of a "runner up" because hashing is progress
>> free. It's unintuitive and often trips people up. There's no concept
>> that everyone is 95% of the way to finding a solution and then someone
>> pips you to the post. It's more like playing the lottery over and over
>> again. Doesn't matter how many times you did it before, the next time
>> your chances are the same.
>>
>> A better concept is of rewarding "near miss" solutions which is what
>> we already do of course, via pools, which pay you for shares which
>> don't quite meet the difficulty target but almost do. So the question
>> is how can we implement pools which have this reward structure (which
>> obviously works well) without miners simultaneously giving up their
>> right to block creation either due to technical problems or sheer
>> lazyness.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
> Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
> Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community
> Edition
> Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
> Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft_________________________________________=
______
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>