[RFC]: A distributed mining pool proposal

[JoelKatz]

Then, IMO, the biggest issue left is whether it would be antisocial to mine lots of blocks with 1,000 or more outputs in the coinbase transaction.

[nanotube]

Then, IMO, the biggest issue left is whether it would be antisocial to mine lots of blocks with 1,000 or more outputs in the coinbase transaction.

an extra output in the coinbase tx adds only a few bytes, 50-60 bytes is the figure i was quoted on IRC. so with 1000 outputs in the coinbase, we are only adding 50kb to the block or so. nothing to be writing home about, really.

[ampkZjWDQcqT]

Where's the RFC?.

[Anonymous]

If you could add other nodes based on geolocation could you cluster together with nodes that are local to you for lower latency ?

[nanotube]

Where's the RFC?.

well, first post, has a link to a page... with the basic framework written up.

[ampkZjWDQcqT]

Where's the RFC?.

well, first post, has a link to a page... with the basic framework written up.

So?.

The Request for Comments (AKA RFCs) are documents published by the IETF like this one. I have yet to see a reference to the number of the RFC you're talking about.

[WakiMiko]

How about a mining system where the clients collect transactions normally (as if they were solo mining) and only the coinbase transaction is predefined by the pool?

While this wouldn't solve the dDoS problem, it would take the "network control" away from pools.

[JoelKatz]

How about a mining system where the clients collect transactions normally (as if they were solo mining) and only the coinbase transaction is predefined by the pool?

While this wouldn't solve the dDoS problem, it would take the "network control" away from pools.

It could solve, or at least reduce, the dDoS problem -- the client only needs to talk to the pool to report shares, and it can do that at its leisure. Slowing down the pool server's responsiveness would have no effect.

[nanotube]

Where's the RFC?.

well, first post, has a link to a page... with the basic framework written up.

So?.

The Request for Comments (AKA RFCs) are documents published by the IETF like this one. I have yet to see a reference to the number of the RFC you're talking about.

I am requesting comments. Therefore this is a request for comments. Nowhere did I imply that this was in any way official or connected with any standards-setting organization like IETF.

[JoelKatz]

The Request for Comments (AKA RFCs) are documents published by the IETF like this one. I have yet to see a reference to the number of the RFC you're talking about.

It is not uncommon at all to use the tag 'RFC' to mean something that is in fact requesting comments. It is the IETF that abuses the term since many IETF RFCs are not requests for comments at all.