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
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
|
Return-Path: <antoine@alc.io>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20192360
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:24:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:23:04 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from slow1-d.mail.gandi.net (slow1-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.86])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB85728A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:24:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (relay2-d.mail.gandi.net
[217.70.183.194])
by slow1-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D54447E1EF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:56:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mfilter11-d.gandi.net (mfilter11-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.131])
by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830DDC5A44
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:56:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter11-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.194])
by mfilter11-d.gandi.net (mfilter11-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180])
(amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NLEOOamrhM5u
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:56:50 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 2.216.198.114
Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [2.216.198.114])
(Authenticated sender: antoine@alc.io)
by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E08C5C5A60
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:56:49 +0200 (CEST)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com>
From: Antoine Le Calvez <antoine@alc.io>
Message-ID: <3cf94d94-f5c9-602e-a8f5-1fe8686468b1@alc.io>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:56:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------4A398C2AF83CF7587A297238"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:31:05 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:24:08 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4A398C2AF83CF7587A297238
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't think encouraging mining more transactions is a good idea since
it would promote inefficient transaction patterns. It's more efficient
to send transactions with a high number of outputs/inputs instead of
creating long transaction chains as some services do.
You might consider incentivizing miners to mine blocks that reduce the
UTXO set size the most, or some other metric that promotes efficient
uses of the blockchain.
On 27/03/17 17:12, Btc Ideas via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more
> transactions. This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same height
> are found. The first good block mined would be orphaned if it had less
> transactions than another. Optionally, have this rule apply to the
> current block and the previous one.
>
> This increases incentive for full blocks because a miner thinking the
> faster propagation of a smaller block will win him the reward, but
> that would no longer be a good assumption.
>
> I read some miners could attack a chain by mining small or empty
> blocks. This makes that a little more difficult, but they can still
> attack the chain many ways.
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------4A398C2AF83CF7587A297238
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I don't think encouraging mining more transactions is a good idea
since it would promote inefficient transaction patterns. It's more
efficient to send transactions with a high number of
outputs/inputs instead of creating long transaction chains as some
services do.</p>
<p>You might consider incentivizing miners to mine blocks that
reduce the UTXO set size the most, or some other metric that
promotes efficient uses of the blockchain.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/03/17 17:12, Btc Ideas via
bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more
transactions. This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same
height are found. The first good block mined would be orphaned
if it had less transactions than another. Optionally, have this
rule apply to the current block and the previous one.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This increases incentive for full blocks because a miner
thinking the faster propagation of a smaller block will win him
the reward, but that would no longer be a good assumption.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I read some miners could attack a chain by mining small or
empty blocks. This makes that a little more difficult, but they
can still attack the chain many ways.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="protonmail_signature_block ">
<div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton ">Sent with <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://protonmail.com">ProtonMail</a>
Secure Email.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------4A398C2AF83CF7587A297238--
|
