[Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?

Peter Vessenes peter at coinlab.com
Tue May 29 15:05:18 UTC 2012

OK, I have a few thoughts on this:

1) Germane to the original conversation, anything hard to implement will
not get implemented by miners.
2) Coinbase is hard-limited to 100 bytes; this has to include space for
voting as well as extra nonce, etc. So, I'm not sure that a full URL is a
good plan.
3) I'm a little fuzzy on the details of BIP governance; but I'm happy to
write one up and get my thoughts down, or someone who's more familiar could
do it, I suppose.

I propose the following spec:

periodically a miner may choose to publish a url through their coinbase as

1) They shall prepend \mi: to the url to designate it as a url for miner
info, and append a trailing \ to the url
2) The url given in the coinbase shall have http:// prepended to it before
3) The destination may be a redirect (to allow short URLs), or may deliver
4) The content-type returned by the final site post-redirect shall be
either (preferred text/json) or text/plain or text/html
4) The text of the document delivered shall be a JSON format dictionary,
and shall include at minimum the following fields: 'min_fee', 'pool_name',
and 'last_modified' Optional fields can be determined over time as
necessary by the mining community
5) The Service Level Agreement isn't binding, but miners who implement it
are expected to make a best efforts attempt to follow it.

So a valid coinbase could be:

Generally a miner would occasionally publish the \mi:\ when they had
updated their SLA, or just every so often, but the canonical location would
be the final destination URL from the redirects.

Inre: Luke's complaint about JSON, it is the language of the web. There is
no easier format for both computers and humans to read, and in this case,
it includes extensibility, which is nice, since we have no idea how miners
will wish to divvy up their services; I think one would need to make a
strong case against JSON for a specific reason to not choose it by default.

Thoughts welcome!



On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:52:49 AM Michael Grønager wrote:
> > The format of the sla.php page should then be specified too - but it
> could
> > be a json-rpc call returning a json object like (as result): {
> >     sla_version: "0.1",
> >     accept_no_fee_tx: false,
> >     min_fee: 50000,
> >     big_tx_fee: 10000, // extra fee pr kb
> > }
> > I guess miners could work out a more suitable set of fees...
> Please not JSON, and not hard-coded logic. Bitcoin already has a secure
> scripting system - perhaps we can decide on an initial stack format and
> run a
> script retrieved from the URI?

Peter J. Vessenes
CEO, CoinLab
M: 206.595.9839
Skype: vessenes
Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112885659993091300749>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120529/134da980/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list