Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2022-10-20 š Original message:On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at ...
š
Original date posted:2022-10-20
š Original message:On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:30:26AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It is most certainly the case that one can construct situations where not
> mining on the tip is going to be the prefered strategy. But even if that
> happens on occasion, it's not like the protocol immediately collapses,
> because mining off the tip is indistinguishable from being a high latency
> miner who simply didn't receive the most work block in time. So it is more
I don't believe that's a good argument.
A sufficiently large high latency miner who doesn't receive the most work block
in time would cause huge disruptions to the network, potentially causing other
miners to be unprofitable. I even gave a talk on this a few years back, on how
if Bitcoin mining in space becomes profitable, it'll cause enormous problems
due to the slow speed of light.
> of a question of how rare does it need to be, and what can we do to reduce
> the chances of such situations arising (e.g. updating our mining policy to
> leave some transactions out based on current (and anticipated) mempool
> conditions, or (for a sufficiently capitalized miner) leave an explicit,
> ANYONECANSPEND transaction output as a tip for the next miner to build upon
> mined blocks.)
...at which point the large miners are likely to be significantly more
profitable than small miners, because they can collect more fees. That's a
disaster.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221020/274e40af/attachment.sig>;
š Original message:On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:30:26AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It is most certainly the case that one can construct situations where not
> mining on the tip is going to be the prefered strategy. But even if that
> happens on occasion, it's not like the protocol immediately collapses,
> because mining off the tip is indistinguishable from being a high latency
> miner who simply didn't receive the most work block in time. So it is more
I don't believe that's a good argument.
A sufficiently large high latency miner who doesn't receive the most work block
in time would cause huge disruptions to the network, potentially causing other
miners to be unprofitable. I even gave a talk on this a few years back, on how
if Bitcoin mining in space becomes profitable, it'll cause enormous problems
due to the slow speed of light.
> of a question of how rare does it need to be, and what can we do to reduce
> the chances of such situations arising (e.g. updating our mining policy to
> leave some transactions out based on current (and anticipated) mempool
> conditions, or (for a sufficiently capitalized miner) leave an explicit,
> ANYONECANSPEND transaction output as a tip for the next miner to build upon
> mined blocks.)
...at which point the large miners are likely to be significantly more
profitable than small miners, because they can collect more fees. That's a
disaster.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221020/274e40af/attachment.sig>;