📅 Original date posted:2012-05-29
📝 Original message:OK, I have a few thoughts on this:
1) Germane to the original conversation, anything hard to implement will
not get implemented by miners.
2) Coinbase is hard-limited to 100 bytes; this has to include space for
voting as well as extra nonce, etc. So, I'm not sure that a full URL is a
good plan.
3) I'm a little fuzzy on the details of BIP governance; but I'm happy to
write one up and get my thoughts down, or someone who's more familiar could
do it, I suppose.
I propose the following spec:
periodically a miner may choose to publish a url through their coinbase as
follows:
1) They shall prepend \mi: to the url to designate it as a url for miner
info, and append a trailing \ to the url
2) The url given in the coinbase shall have http:// prepended to it before
processing.
3) The destination may be a redirect (to allow short URLs), or may deliver
content
4) The content-type returned by the final site post-redirect shall be
either (preferred text/json) or text/plain or text/html
4) The text of the document delivered shall be a JSON format dictionary,
and shall include at minimum the following fields: 'min_fee', 'pool_name',
and 'last_modified' Optional fields can be determined over time as
necessary by the mining community
5) The Service Level Agreement isn't binding, but miners who implement it
are expected to make a best efforts attempt to follow it.
So a valid coinbase could be:
/P2SH/\mi:goo.gl/mr2D\extra_nonce:2110
Generally a miner would occasionally publish the \mi:\ when they had
updated their SLA, or just every so often, but the canonical location would
be the final destination URL from the redirects.
Inre: Luke's complaint about JSON, it is the language of the web. There is
no easier format for both computers and humans to read, and in this case,
it includes extensibility, which is nice, since we have no idea how miners
will wish to divvy up their services; I think one would need to make a
strong case against JSON for a specific reason to not choose it by default.
Thoughts welcome!
Best,
Peter
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:52:49 AM Michael Grønager wrote:
> > The format of the sla.php page should then be specified too - but it
> could
> > be a json-rpc call returning a json object like (as result): {
> > sla_version: "0.1",
> > accept_no_fee_tx: false,
> > min_fee: 50000,
> > big_tx_fee: 10000, // extra fee pr kb
> > }
> > I guess miners could work out a more suitable set of fees...
>
> Please not JSON, and not hard-coded logic. Bitcoin already has a secure
> scripting system - perhaps we can decide on an initial stack format and
> run a
> script retrieved from the URI?
>
>
--
Peter J. Vessenes
CEO, CoinLab
M: 206.595.9839
Skype: vessenes
Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112885659993091300749>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120529/134da980/attachment.html>;
Peter Vessenes [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ez…6r8pt
2023-06-07 10:10:22
in reply to nevent1q…mqkj
Author Public Key
npub1ezg54d03a7unwu0fckmlugxulukrg06x7jzx4engngxfg79sfcqsn6r8ptSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 10:10:22Event JSON
{
"id": "457b4002fb2c4b3f7eecc91109d9310d1db8581aa4f41942bc4477390ebd2b63",
"pubkey": "c8914ab5f1efb93771e9c5b7fe20dcff2c343f46f4846ae6689a0c9478b04e01",
"created_at": 1686132622,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bea123cfa1dde96d98089cdcf953f77564e34363cd7b11c4a3504634664d4aa2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"252e217ed4a52852039ddf5f0e3f2f649b482f931e2274a6c479951aaa422c9e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-05-29\n📝 Original message:OK, I have a few thoughts on this:\n\n1) Germane to the original conversation, anything hard to implement will\nnot get implemented by miners.\n2) Coinbase is hard-limited to 100 bytes; this has to include space for\nvoting as well as extra nonce, etc. So, I'm not sure that a full URL is a\ngood plan.\n3) I'm a little fuzzy on the details of BIP governance; but I'm happy to\nwrite one up and get my thoughts down, or someone who's more familiar could\ndo it, I suppose.\n\nI propose the following spec:\n\nperiodically a miner may choose to publish a url through their coinbase as\nfollows:\n\n1) They shall prepend \\mi: to the url to designate it as a url for miner\ninfo, and append a trailing \\ to the url\n2) The url given in the coinbase shall have http:// prepended to it before\nprocessing.\n3) The destination may be a redirect (to allow short URLs), or may deliver\ncontent\n4) The content-type returned by the final site post-redirect shall be\neither (preferred text/json) or text/plain or text/html\n4) The text of the document delivered shall be a JSON format dictionary,\nand shall include at minimum the following fields: 'min_fee', 'pool_name',\nand 'last_modified' Optional fields can be determined over time as\nnecessary by the mining community\n5) The Service Level Agreement isn't binding, but miners who implement it\nare expected to make a best efforts attempt to follow it.\n\nSo a valid coinbase could be:\n/P2SH/\\mi:goo.gl/mr2D\\extra_nonce:2110\n\nGenerally a miner would occasionally publish the \\mi:\\ when they had\nupdated their SLA, or just every so often, but the canonical location would\nbe the final destination URL from the redirects.\n\nInre: Luke's complaint about JSON, it is the language of the web. There is\nno easier format for both computers and humans to read, and in this case,\nit includes extensibility, which is nice, since we have no idea how miners\nwill wish to divvy up their services; I think one would need to make a\nstrong case against JSON for a specific reason to not choose it by default.\n\nThoughts welcome!\n\nBest,\n\nPeter\n\n\n\nOn Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:52:49 AM Michael Grønager wrote:\n\u003e \u003e The format of the sla.php page should then be specified too - but it\n\u003e could\n\u003e \u003e be a json-rpc call returning a json object like (as result): {\n\u003e \u003e sla_version: \"0.1\",\n\u003e \u003e accept_no_fee_tx: false,\n\u003e \u003e min_fee: 50000,\n\u003e \u003e big_tx_fee: 10000, // extra fee pr kb\n\u003e \u003e }\n\u003e \u003e I guess miners could work out a more suitable set of fees...\n\u003e\n\u003e Please not JSON, and not hard-coded logic. Bitcoin already has a secure\n\u003e scripting system - perhaps we can decide on an initial stack format and\n\u003e run a\n\u003e script retrieved from the URI?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nPeter J. Vessenes\nCEO, CoinLab\nM: 206.595.9839\nSkype: vessenes\nGoogle+ \u003chttps://plus.google.com/112885659993091300749\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120529/134da980/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "8c3cbc4be6c4b5acd26723ee90636e0510ae618bbee7ff45442825a9e2379652a9414141a23c57f96abe3215615ae9a55feaaf1c97ee2bc54225660d8e2124f0"
}