<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thanks Mike.<br>
<br>
Indeed, I am aware of current approach, which is why I was
suggesting this as an alternative. <br>
I haven't thought about it enough, and perhaps it was too radical
a rethinking - just wanted to see what the smarter minds thought.<br>
<br>
Thanks again.<br>
<br>
-Randi<br>
<br>
On 7/5/14, 4:43 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANEZrP3v3Racyt-b9_DLMKuQ8UMBkgEa8kfGmPjcSssmrDHkhA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">Is it possible instead to
allocate a portion of the reward to " a # of<br>
runner up(s)" even though the runner-up(s) block will be
orphaned?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There's really no concept of a "runner up" because
hashing is progress free. It's unintuitive and often trips
people up. There's no concept that everyone is 95% of the
way to finding a solution and then someone pips you to the
post. It's more like playing the lottery over and over
again. Doesn't matter how many times you did it before,
the next time your chances are the same.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A better concept is of rewarding "near miss" solutions
which is what we already do of course, via pools, which
pay you for shares which don't quite meet the difficulty
target but almost do. So the question is how can we
implement pools which have this reward structure (which
obviously works well) without miners simultaneously giving
up their right to block creation either due to technical
problems or sheer lazyness.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>