📅 Original date posted:2014-04-21
📝 Original message:On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> That is mistaken: you can't mine on top of just a block header, leaving
> small miners disadvantaged as they are earning no profit while they wait
> for the information to validate the block and update their UTXO sets. This
> results in the same problem as before, as the large pools who mine most
> blocks can validate either instantly - the self-mine case - or more quickly
> than the smaller miners.
>
>
Under the headers first scenario, wouldn't the full block still reach
everyone in the same time as it would under the current rules? So the
small miner loses nothing in terms of updating their UTXO set, but gains an
early "heads up" alert that a new block is coming. This allows them spend
the propagation time working more productively on an empty block in the new
chain rather than wasting time on an orphan. It's true that it doesn't
solve the problem of larger pools vs smaller pools, but if it doesn't make
it any worse then headers-first propagation would be a net benefit to the
network since it removes the incentive to make small blocks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140422/55badfcc/attachment.html>;
Ashley Holman [ARCHIVE] /
npub14g…u4vq6
2023-06-07 15:19:11
in reply to nevent1q…wlp9
Author Public Key
npub14gv4tc4w0zkzyrfa5u2gvsajqlf3cgevux3xth46ukfrnqlcl8xqru4vq6Published at
2023-06-07 15:19:11Event JSON
{
"id": "5e733157aceb3eba800b649baed9ef9c1ba2418c002690dc5314b65f499edf36",
"pubkey": "aa1955e2ae78ac220d3da7148643b207d31c232ce1a265debae5923983f8f9cc",
"created_at": 1686151151,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"225542fbb0416409e03eda129471630d31d92ef89928ee3f68c485123513f923",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dea7947c7b6e34f1a0d74724d43cd0c511156369866374e7415836cbfdb6bd40",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-21\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e That is mistaken: you can't mine on top of just a block header, leaving\n\u003e small miners disadvantaged as they are earning no profit while they wait\n\u003e for the information to validate the block and update their UTXO sets. This\n\u003e results in the same problem as before, as the large pools who mine most\n\u003e blocks can validate either instantly - the self-mine case - or more quickly\n\u003e than the smaller miners.\n\u003e\n\u003e\nUnder the headers first scenario, wouldn't the full block still reach\neveryone in the same time as it would under the current rules? So the\nsmall miner loses nothing in terms of updating their UTXO set, but gains an\nearly \"heads up\" alert that a new block is coming. This allows them spend\nthe propagation time working more productively on an empty block in the new\nchain rather than wasting time on an orphan. It's true that it doesn't\nsolve the problem of larger pools vs smaller pools, but if it doesn't make\nit any worse then headers-first propagation would be a net benefit to the\nnetwork since it removes the incentive to make small blocks.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140422/55badfcc/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "bc5ffbc4cef2a906186be5b3b41ec11a4e4d79be7e4e499d79dba9422722fa7841721f8be2c7b7a97e378abd9a14dc994f2881f8894ce64408d8a9d166597940"
}