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
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1VBVqd-0003Wd-1g
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:14:43 +0000
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;
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VBVqc-0005Tg-BX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:14:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id m16so346971ieq.9
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.210.147 with SMTP id gk19mr330812icb.54.1376943277049;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1VBVqc-0005Tg-BX
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
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: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:14:43 -0000
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
|
