9/ At height T+100 the protocol mandates that payouts for block T must go out to individual miners. It’s important that payouts for a specific block go out at the same time & not incrementally, since you need all claims before you can calculate correct share percentages.
-
-
I like
@TheBlueMatt's proposal a lot and intend to incorporate basically everything there, but with BetterHash you still have to trust the pool operator. Two additional things#braidpool gives you are: 1. Removal of trusted pool operator 2. Solution to the selfish mining attack -
Thanks for all the comments. Very interesting :)
-
I want to focus on this comment of yours, since IMO it touches on the crux of the challenge when designing such a protocol. Using DAG (vs. a simple linked-list) sounds to me more like an optimization and less fundamental. (cc
@real_vijay)https://twitter.com/BobMcElrath/status/1005753364704104449 … -
@jimmysong thinks that there’s no way to ensure that the winning miner cannot cheat, i.e., ignore/censor shares. I’m inclined to agree, curious on how#braidpool solves this. https://twitter.com/jimmysong/status/1005630024396017664 … -
> "the winning miner has no choice in the payout -- he committed to it before he started hashing that block and can't change it afterwards." How does "commitment" work? is commitment backed by PoW?
-
The commitment is to a set of half-signed lightning payments dependent on the channel in the coinbase, signed by the block creator. So yes it's backed by PoW.
-
Ok. And you said the miner made the commitment *before he started hashing that block*? So does the commitment have any weight before the block has been mined? I'm trying to understand how you prevent the miner from dropping / censoring shares in the payout.
-
No it has no weight before he mines the block. It's a Merkle tree commitment just like the transaction Merkle root used in Bitcoin. It's worthless unless you solve the PoW. But if you solve the PoW without the correct commitment, it's an invalid share and won't get paid.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Everyone joining one pool would introduce a physical attack vector. Perhaps, a decentralized mining pool application can prevent a physical attack?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

