Goss, Brian C., M.D. [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-08-19 📝 Original message:What if we have a massive ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-08-19
📝 Original message:What if we have a massive (like many orders of magnitude) drop in network harsh rate? Might such a function be useful to salvage the (non-functioning) network? Same for IRC bootstrapping. How do we pick ourselves up off the ground in case of the equivalent of a great depression in network hash rate (or some jerk spending $100M just to drive the difficulty up and then turning his hardware off?).
-----Original Message-----
From: bitcoin-development-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:bitcoin-development-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 3:16 PM
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 27, Issue 28
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-development-owner at lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Jeff Garzik)
2. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Frank F)
3. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Luke-Jr)
4. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Pieter Wuille)
5. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Matt Corallo)
6. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Frank F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:27:01 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CAJHLa0MnnWw=qiYC0nJcY=BdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and problems.
On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support getwork.
However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We don't want to break anybody needlessly.
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:09:41 -0500
From: Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
now, is not a good path to start down.
If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
addressed and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to
> remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
>
> On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
> directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to
> talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show
> that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and
> problems.
>
> On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
> Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are
> available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support
> getwork.
>
> However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted
> to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a
> driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We
> don't want to break anybody needlessly.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
> AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
> analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.
> Visit us today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>;
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +0000
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <201308192013.02806.luke at dashjr.org>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
On Monday, August 19, 2013 8:09:41 PM Frank F wrote:
> I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
> that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
> favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
> mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
> ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> now, is not a good path to start down.
>
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
> addressed and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
You missed getblocktemplate. It does everything getwork did and more.
Individual solo miners aren't being locked out at all. This is just removal of
a protocol that has been obsolete for well over a year now.
Luke
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:14:36 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CAPg+sBjMdZfHpZrvHwMx6oQsS0yJaXVjTnyRwf6VCdnWTHQZaw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
> that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
> favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
> mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
> ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> now, is not a good path to start down.
>
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be addressed
> and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.
It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to
see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and
even modify it.
The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an
obsolete API for doing so.
--
Pieter
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:15:08 -0400
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list at bluematt.me>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <1376943308.27037.7.camel at localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
ACK, I see no reason to leave broken things in that a) arent necessary
and b) no one has the developer resources to fix.
Matt
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 12:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to
> remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
>
> On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
> directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to
> talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show
> that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and
> problems.
>
> On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
> Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are
> available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support
> getwork.
>
> However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted
> to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a
> driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We
> don't want to break anybody needlessly.
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:16:17 -0500
From: Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CALxyHsV=LWY+TzZG-XBQ6HNhxFEezjFhW++aJ7oVbVGEJWW0nw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thank you for setting me straight. Please forgive my ignorance.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to
> say
> > that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this
> that
> > favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> > bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> > tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows
> what
> > mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice
> the
> > ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> > now, is not a good path to start down.
> >
> > If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
> addressed
> > and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
>
> They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.
> It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to
> see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and
> even modify it.
>
> The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an
> obsolete API for doing so.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>;
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.
Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
End of Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 27, Issue 28
***************************************************
📝 Original message:What if we have a massive (like many orders of magnitude) drop in network harsh rate? Might such a function be useful to salvage the (non-functioning) network? Same for IRC bootstrapping. How do we pick ourselves up off the ground in case of the equivalent of a great depression in network hash rate (or some jerk spending $100M just to drive the difficulty up and then turning his hardware off?).
-----Original Message-----
From: bitcoin-development-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:bitcoin-development-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 3:16 PM
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 27, Issue 28
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-development-owner at lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Jeff Garzik)
2. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Frank F)
3. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Luke-Jr)
4. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Pieter Wuille)
5. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Matt Corallo)
6. Re: Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind (Frank F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:27:01 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CAJHLa0MnnWw=qiYC0nJcY=BdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and problems.
On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support getwork.
However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We don't want to break anybody needlessly.
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:09:41 -0500
From: Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
now, is not a good path to start down.
If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
addressed and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to
> remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
>
> On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
> directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to
> talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show
> that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and
> problems.
>
> On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
> Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are
> available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support
> getwork.
>
> However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted
> to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a
> driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We
> don't want to break anybody needlessly.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
> AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
> analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.
> Visit us today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>;
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +0000
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <201308192013.02806.luke at dashjr.org>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
On Monday, August 19, 2013 8:09:41 PM Frank F wrote:
> I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
> that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
> favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
> mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
> ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> now, is not a good path to start down.
>
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
> addressed and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
You missed getblocktemplate. It does everything getwork did and more.
Individual solo miners aren't being locked out at all. This is just removal of
a protocol that has been obsolete for well over a year now.
Luke
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:14:36 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CAPg+sBjMdZfHpZrvHwMx6oQsS0yJaXVjTnyRwf6VCdnWTHQZaw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say
> that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that
> favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what
> mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the
> ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> now, is not a good path to start down.
>
> If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be addressed
> and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.
It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to
see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and
even modify it.
The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an
obsolete API for doing so.
--
Pieter
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:15:08 -0400
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list at bluematt.me>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <1376943308.27037.7.camel at localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
ACK, I see no reason to leave broken things in that a) arent necessary
and b) no one has the developer resources to fix.
Matt
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 12:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Pull request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2905 proposes to
> remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
>
> On mainnet, almost everybody uses a pool (and therefore, not "getwork"
> directly to bitcoind). Those few who solo mine use a pool server to
> talk to bitcoind via "getblocktemplate" or other means. Tests show
> that attempts to solo mine on mainnet via "getwork" lead to delays and
> problems.
>
> On testnet, getwork has a better chance of continuing to work.
> Nevertheless, the same tools (open source pool servers or p2pool) are
> available for testnet, obviating the continued need to support
> getwork.
>
> However, at one time, getwork to bitcoind was widely used. I wanted
> to poke the audience, to gauge response to removing "getwork." If a
> driving use case remains of which we're unaware, speak up, please. We
> don't want to break anybody needlessly.
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:16:17 -0500
From: Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from
bitcoind
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID:
<CALxyHsV=LWY+TzZG-XBQ6HNhxFEezjFhW++aJ7oVbVGEJWW0nw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thank you for setting me straight. Please forgive my ignorance.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to
> say
> > that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this
> that
> > favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that
> > bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a
> > tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows
> what
> > mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice
> the
> > ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient
> > now, is not a good path to start down.
> >
> > If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be
> addressed
> > and fixed instead of outright abandoned.
>
> They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.
> It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to
> see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and
> even modify it.
>
> The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an
> obsolete API for doing so.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>;
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.
Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
End of Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 27, Issue 28
***************************************************