Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 22:14:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjMdZfHpZrvHwMx6oQsS0yJaXVjTnyRwf6VCdnWTHQZaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
	bitcoind
Precedence: list

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
> that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
> favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
> mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
> ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> now, is not a good path to start down.
>
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be addressed
> and fixed instead of outright abandoned.

They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.
It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to
see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and
even modify it.

The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an
obsolete API for doing so.

-- 
Pieter