Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-11-05 📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-11-05
📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Drak <drak at zikula.org> wrote:
> If I understand the issue properly, this seems like a pretty elegant
> solution: if two blocks are broadcast within a certain period of eachother,
> chose the lower target. That's a provable fair way of randomly choosing the
> winning block and would seem like a pretty simply patch.
uh. and so when my solution is, by chance, unusually low... I am
incentivized to hurry up and release my block because?
I've simulated non-first-block-heard strategies in the past (in the
two nearly tied miner with network latency model) and they result in
significant increase in large (e.g. >>6 block) reorgs). It's easy to
make convergence worse or to create additional perverse incentives.
📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Drak <drak at zikula.org> wrote:
> If I understand the issue properly, this seems like a pretty elegant
> solution: if two blocks are broadcast within a certain period of eachother,
> chose the lower target. That's a provable fair way of randomly choosing the
> winning block and would seem like a pretty simply patch.
uh. and so when my solution is, by chance, unusually low... I am
incentivized to hurry up and release my block because?
I've simulated non-first-block-heard strategies in the past (in the
two nearly tied miner with network latency model) and they result in
significant increase in large (e.g. >>6 block) reorgs). It's easy to
make convergence worse or to create additional perverse incentives.