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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1VBVrC-0006yM-DC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:15:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=173.246.101.161;
envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VBVrB-0008OE-4i for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:15:18 +0000
Received: from mail42.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEADF2ABE;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:15:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.232.233.14] (vps.bluematt.me [173.246.101.161])
by mail42.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15772486E6;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:15:09 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1376943308.27037.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:15:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MnnWw=qiYC0nJcY=BdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0MnnWw=qiYC0nJcY=BdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-2.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1VBVrB-0008OE-4i
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 20:15:18 -0000
ACK, I see no reason to leave broken things in that a) arent necessary
and b) no one has the developer resources to fix.
Matt
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 12:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to
> remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
>
> On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
> directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to
> talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show
> that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and
> problems.
>
> On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
> Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are
> available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support
> getwork.
>
> However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted
> to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a
> driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We
> don't want to break anybody needlessly.
>
|
