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
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB8BB159D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>,
Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3NFRO5nw3z=jrs0Hu3caVNkkTTTb1ibqR7LMWsoou9RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2+dG0AE+MgKRAU97KhkHTU1MuxXuwHKv3BgpJswZ5vVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABaSBaxcDRzw0X7-fAfxPJyLcWxTHigpHuAPb4aNQ5zk5NoDCQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTr-OuL3T6mXX-4xFC_LHnAiogTTcPMbcjsM7WtRisQEQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3NFRO5nw3z=jrs0Hu3caVNkkTTTb1ibqR7LMWsoou9RQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:33:12 -0000
Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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.
|
