📅 Original date posted:2013-08-19 📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at ...

Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /

npub1tje…tl6r

2023-06-07 15:06:20

in reply to nevent1q…fqlv

📅 Original date posted:2013-08-19
📝 Original message: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

Author Public Key

npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 15:06:20

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "2eb63930649bf76236f12afbdc3e4880cfaa90d0dbf9cbdd5b3c4ac2cb440f7b", "pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6", "created_at": 1686150380, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "bb0527f033ea487dcaa4ce33f90b862c947802222a1f356b24c426eb3b6562e3", "", "root" ], [ "e", "4e9cc33dd10f82b2e4e22cae43686156fe049f24033aca54113efcf2bef6b311", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-08-19\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F \u003cfrankf44 at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say\n\u003e that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that\n\u003e favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that\n\u003e bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a\n\u003e tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what\n\u003e mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the\n\u003e ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient\n\u003e now, is not a good path to start down.\n\u003e\n\u003e If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be addressed\n\u003e and fixed instead of outright abandoned.\n\nThey were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate.\nIt's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to\nsee what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and\neven modify it.\n\nThe suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an\nobsolete API for doing so.\n\n-- \nPieter", "sig": "b9b831220fadb4747193c9a1d905953c56f35c62c4bd225d449b760782726cc991f564efb86152338c2ffad0abdaef39f06f9fc306930874da01442e6db60a44" }