Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WxgF9-0001XZ-2K
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:35:23 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f45.google.com; 
Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WxgF7-0003OD-Aj
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:35:23 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o6so5863451oag.4
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.79.102 with SMTP id i6mr3519325obx.85.1403199315804;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53A31B3E.7020906@monetize.io>
References: <53A316BE.5040508@certimix.com>
	<53A31B3E.7020906@monetize.io>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:35:15 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PQxD45TpYLneHg6fd_Yw4xBtg2c
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2Lq-28NuvOJR_rS3N2TZsy13xrKubcfPBrMbP7WArcKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e46d2c48ae504fc33ccb1
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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
X-Headers-End: 1WxgF7-0003OD-Aj
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BlockPow: A Practical Proposal to prevent
 mining pools AND reduce payoff variance:
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: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:35:23 -0000

--047d7b2e46d2c48ae504fc33ccb1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> The issue is centralized transaction selection policies, which is
> entirely orthogonal. And the solution already exists: getblocktemplate.


My (fresh!) understanding is that the reason we don't see people using
getblocktemplate to decentralise pools is because libblkmaker and other
implementations don't actually support connecting your own node to the
miners and choosing your own blocks, even though the protocol does.

I've written up a blog post that I hope will go out on the Foundation blog
soon with some low hanging fruity ideas for miner decentralisation.

Sergio, I'd love to give you intelligent feedback but unfortunately reading
it made my brain explode :) Sorry!

--047d7b2e46d2c48ae504fc33ccb1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">The issue is centralized transaction selection p=
olicies, which is<br>

entirely orthogonal. And the solution already exists: getblocktemplate.</bl=
ockquote><div><br></div><div>My (fresh!) understanding is that the reason w=
e don&#39;t see people using getblocktemplate to decentralise pools is beca=
use libblkmaker and other implementations don&#39;t actually support connec=
ting your own node to the miners and choosing your own blocks, even though =
the protocol does.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I&#39;ve written up a blog post that I hope will go out=
 on the Foundation blog soon with some low hanging fruity ideas for miner d=
ecentralisation.</div><div><br></div><div>Sergio, I&#39;d love to give you =
intelligent feedback but unfortunately reading it made my brain explode :) =
Sorry!</div>
</div></div></div>

--047d7b2e46d2c48ae504fc33ccb1--