[Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
peter at coinlab.com
Tue May 29 15:28:56 UTC 2012
I disagree with a bunch of your points, but I'll wait on others to comment,
except I will say that I don't understand what the 20 byte keyhash is. Can
I am assuming major mining folks have written their own coinbasing
facilities, but perhaps this is not the case -- if so, I agree that some
work is necessary for such miners.
Finally I will just comment that I am guided by the general perspective
that many things about bitcoins are opt-in; therefore it makes sense to me
put difficult work onto those who are motivated to do it, and keep things
as easy as possible for the 'maybes' to participate -- hence small
courtesies like allowing text/plain or text/html.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:05:18 PM Peter Vessenes wrote:
> > 1) Germane to the original conversation, anything hard to implement will
> > not get implemented by miners.
> Without my got-tired-of-waiting-for-someone-to-merge-it coinbaser branch,
> anything modifying the coinbase is hard to implement.
> > 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.
> Rather, I would suggest a 20 byte keyhash, which allows the owner to
> a full URI out-of-band.
> > 1) They shall prepend \mi: to the url to designate it as a url for miner
> > info, and append a trailing \ to the url
> How about a simple prefix to the fixed-size keyhash?
> Perhaps "MFR=" (Mining Fee Rules)
> > 2) The url given in the coinbase shall have http:// prepended to it
> > processing.
> I would recommend miners use https, with a specified SSL keyhash in the URI
> (so we don't need to pay for a "proper" SSL cert).
> > 3) The destination may be a redirect (to allow short URLs), or may
> > content
> Clients should simply be required to follow the relevant HTTP
> > 4) The content-type returned by the final site post-redirect shall be
> > either (preferred text/json) or text/plain or text/html
> text/plain and text/html are just wrong and don't make any sense here.
> > Inre: Luke's complaint about JSON, it is the language of the web. There
> > 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
> > 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
> Bitcoin isn't "the web", it's a complicated script-based cryptocurrency.
> Everything in the Bitcoin protocol requires a computer's interpretation for
> humans, and there's no reason to stray from this default. Also, JSON is not
> extensible in any of the ways needed for this specific purpose.
> > 4) The text of the document delivered shall be a JSON format dictionary,
> > and shall include at minimum the following fields: 'min_fee',
> > and 'last_modified' Optional fields can be determined over time as
> > necessary by the mining community
> Last Modified and other caching rules are dealt with in the relevant HTTP
> > 5) The Service Level Agreement isn't binding, but miners who implement it
> > are expected to make a best efforts attempt to follow it.
> While it doesn't make sense to give it the full legal force of a contract,
> think it should be expressed as a "MUST" in the BIP.
> > Generally a miner would occasionally publish the \mi:\ when they had
> > updated their SLA, or just every so often, but the canonical location
> > be the final destination URL from the redirects.
> The coinbase advertisement MUST be part of every coinbase mined by the
> or there's no reliable way to prove which blocks are theirs.
Peter J. Vessenes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev