Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:17:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: PULL request #748 : Pay-to-script-hash (OP_EVAL replacement)  (Read 11483 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
January 21, 2012, 01:52:24 AM
 #101

Can a pool operator please mine a block containing a P2SH transaction on main net and redeem it. I'd like to a do some P2SH preperation, but don't have Testnet setup.
You can do it with Eligius. Just be sure to pay the appropriate fee.

I'll be doing a BIP 17 P2SH test as soon as I'm done integrating it with git master (the hard part is undoing the BIP 16 mess).

1481347020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347020
Reply with quote  #2

1481347020
Report to moderator
1481347020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347020
Reply with quote  #2

1481347020
Report to moderator
1481347020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347020
Reply with quote  #2

1481347020
Report to moderator
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
January 24, 2012, 03:51:04 PM
 #102

So all you need to do is get the top 2 or 3 pool operators to switch to the new code and you've secured the 55%. Are any of the pools on board so far?

I'm for p2sh and my pool will provide /P2SH/ in coinbase in two days.

Edit: Actually I want to support Gavin with his effort, but I'll eventually support BIP 17 if there will be broader agreement on it and it became "official" replacement.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 03:56:58 PM
 #103

So all you need to do is get the top 2 or 3 pool operators to switch to the new code and you've secured the 55%. Are any of the pools on board so far?
Eligius is on board for BIP 17.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 24, 2012, 09:56:49 PM
 #104

So all you need to do is get the top 2 or 3 pool operators to switch to the new code and you've secured the 55%. Are any of the pools on board so far?

Whoah, this went definately too easy.

I mean, how decentralized are we, really ? What if US took over 5 biggest pools and having ~65% the next day we would have massive scale attacks on the network ?
That would be a disaster. Perhaps a temporary one, but still a disaster. How long do you think it will take before they try something like this ?

Shouldn't we all push for decentralized pools, like P2Pool ?

Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2012, 10:02:12 PM
 #105

Shouldn't we all push for decentralized pools, like P2Pool ?

Yes.

I'd love so see a bitcoin client with p2pool-technology built in; bring back the "generate coins" option!

But... that will take a while. If I was a pool operator, though, I'd be thinking about other bitcoin-related businesses where I could use my expertise (the pool operators deserve a lot of credit, they've had to deal with DOS attacks, keeping their wallets safe, servicing hundreds or thousands of customers banging on their servers constantly, etc).

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile WWW
January 24, 2012, 10:06:15 PM
 #106

So all you need to do is get the top 2 or 3 pool operators to switch to the new code and you've secured the 55%. Are any of the pools on board so far?

Whoah, this went definately too easy.

I mean, how decentralized are we, really ? What if US took over 5 biggest pools and having ~65% the next day we would have massive scale attacks on the network ?
That would be a disaster. Perhaps a temporary one, but still a disaster. How long do you think it will take before they try something like this ?

Shouldn't we all push for decentralized pools, like P2Pool ?
Yes, but if what you say actually happened, all the people mining on those pools would drop out and switch to another pool (or mine solo).  Still, it would be quite disruptive (large scale attacks on pools have shown that it can have a very disruptive affect on network hash power).  A number of months ago someone came up with an idea that would allow individual miners in a pool to craft their own blocks (including any transactions they see fit, but the coinbase would deliver coins to the pool, not the individual miner).  P2pool is probably better though.  Good software on top of p2pool (with pretty graphs, reports and such) might help in attracting more people to it.

(gasteve on IRC) Does your website accept cash? https://bitpay.com
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
January 24, 2012, 10:22:42 PM
 #107

Shouldn't we all push for decentralized pools, like P2Pool ?
I'd love so see a bitcoin client with p2pool-technology built in; bring back the "generate coins" option!
I implemented one a month or two ago, with support for ButterFlyLabs's BitFORCE...

If I was a pool operator, though, I'd be thinking about other bitcoin-related businesses where I could use my expertise
p2pool is nice, but it competes more with solo mining than pools. Short of some breakthrough idea, p2pool can't provide the low variance that the current centralized pools do.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 03:31:07 AM
 #108

Also, what's the point of low variance when you earn less anyway due to fees?
What fees?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 03:33:06 AM
 #109

Pick the three largest pools. Look at their fees. Those fees.
So use Eligius, not the three largest pools. Solved.

Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 06:48:24 AM
 #110

p2pool is nice, but it competes more with solo mining than pools. Short of some breakthrough idea, p2pool can't provide the low variance that the current centralized pools do.
p2pool is already averaging almost 2 blocks a day, and getting even faster as it grows. IMO that's plenty low enough variance for the average miner.

Buy & Hold
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 09:13:40 AM
 #111

Yes, but if what you say actually happened, all the people mining on those pools would drop out and switch to another pool (or mine solo).  Still, it would be quite disruptive

Which is what i said.

A number of months ago someone came up with an idea that would allow individual miners in a pool to craft their own blocks (including any transactions they see fit, but the coinbase would deliver coins to the pool, not the individual miner).  

Yeah i have seen it, but i don't remember the Topic ID. Could somebody supply a link ?

Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile WWW
January 25, 2012, 02:45:40 PM
 #112

Actually, the pool operators should investigate using p2pool themselves.  I think there are probably plenty of value add services that a pool operator could provide even when something like p2pool is out there (graphing, payout history, monitoring and alerting, etc).  P2pool should also lower the pool operators' costs substantially (not having to maintain as much server and bandwidth or do as much to defend against DDOS, etc).

(gasteve on IRC) Does your website accept cash? https://bitpay.com
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
 #113

Once transactions are validated and buried "deep enough" in the blockchain you can forget their inputs, because the inputs are only needed for validation.

... although SOMEBODY on the network should remember them, in case I-don't-trust-anybody nodes want to validate the entire blockchain.
Actually, I'm not sure this makes sense without major protocol changes. Currently, if you throw away the transaction inputs you can't prove to other nodes that the transaction was actually buried in the blockchain at the place you claim it was - transactions are hashed as a single piece of data and there's no way of verifying the hash without the entire transaction. So it's not really safe to bootstrap new mining nodes without a complete transaction history including inputs, even if they don't validate the entire chain.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
DiThi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157

Firstbits: 1dithi


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 12:46:13 AM
 #114

Once transactions are validated and buried "deep enough" in the blockchain you can forget their inputs, because the inputs are only needed for validation.

... although SOMEBODY on the network should remember them, in case I-don't-trust-anybody nodes want to validate the entire blockchain.
Actually, I'm not sure this makes sense without major protocol changes. Currently, if you throw away the transaction inputs you can't prove to other nodes that the transaction was actually buried in the blockchain at the place you claim it was - transactions are hashed as a single piece of data and there's no way of verifying the hash without the entire transaction. So it's not really safe to bootstrap new mining nodes without a complete transaction history including inputs, even if they don't validate the entire chain.
I asked that question regarding transactions that you know for sure if they have been spent or not. It was before I wrote this proposal to make sure I didn't misunderstand the protocol. Also, you can partially hash a transaction (in blocks of 64 bytes) until less than 64 bytes of the input section remains, so it would always ocuppy 63+32 bytes at most; but there's no need to complicate things. In my proposal you could just hash the outputs.

1DiThiTXZpNmmoGF2dTfSku3EWGsWHCjwt
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!