PULL request #748 : Pay-to-script-hash (OP_EVAL replacement)

[Luke-Jr]

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).

[1713545806]

1713545806

[slush]

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]

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]

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]

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).

[Steve]

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.

[Luke-Jr]

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]

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

What fees?

[Luke-Jr]

Pick the three largest pools. Look at their fees. Those fees.

So use Eligius, not the three largest pools. Solved.

[Syke]

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.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

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]

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).

[makomk]

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.

[DiThi]

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.