Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-23 📝 Original message:Gavin Andresen via ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-23
📝 Original message:Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> I don't see any incentive problems, either. Worst case is more miners
> decide to skip validation and just mine a variation of the
> highest-fee-paying weak block they've seen, but that's not a disaster--
> invalid blocks will still get rejected by all the non-miners running full
> nodes.
That won't help SPV nodes, unfortunately.
> If we did see that behavior, I bet it would be a good strategy for a big
> hashrate miner to dedicate some of their hashrate to announcing invalid
> weak blocks; if you can get your lazy competitors to mine it, then you
> win....
We already see non-validating mining, but they do empty blocks. This
just makes it more attractive in the future, since you can collect fees
too.
But I think it's clear we'll eventually need some UTXO commitment so
full nodes can tell SPV nodes about bad blocks.
Cheers,
Rusty.
📝 Original message:Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> I don't see any incentive problems, either. Worst case is more miners
> decide to skip validation and just mine a variation of the
> highest-fee-paying weak block they've seen, but that's not a disaster--
> invalid blocks will still get rejected by all the non-miners running full
> nodes.
That won't help SPV nodes, unfortunately.
> If we did see that behavior, I bet it would be a good strategy for a big
> hashrate miner to dedicate some of their hashrate to announcing invalid
> weak blocks; if you can get your lazy competitors to mine it, then you
> win....
We already see non-validating mining, but they do empty blocks. This
just makes it more attractive in the future, since you can collect fees
too.
But I think it's clear we'll eventually need some UTXO commitment so
full nodes can tell SPV nodes about bad blocks.
Cheers,
Rusty.