[Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?

Christian Decker decker.christian at gmail.com
Fri May 25 07:47:23 UTC 2012

How about a simple proof of work test? This one though does not ask for CPU
work but asks the miner for a random old transaction. If the miner really
stores the entire blockchain he will not have any problem answering to that
getdata request, whereas a botnet would have to ask someone else for it,
which could be detected if the response time deviates too much from what
has been previously measured (compare it against getdata for the block they
advertise). It's not perfect but it allows an estimate of whether it is a
chainless miner.

Christian Decker

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at exmulti.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > Block times are not accurate enough for that.
> The times in your log are very accurate, assuming your system clock is
> remotely accurate.
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik at exmulti.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120525/a927acc7/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list