That's basically what happens with blocks that are not mined by the share-pool, so it's a standard operating situation. That block is then not considered part of the share-chain and when the share-chain wins a block, it will not be paid.
-
-
Replying to @BobMcElrath @TheBlueMatt and
Is it possible for a miner who belongs to the share-chain/pool to violate share-chain rules (e.g.: ignore all payout shares but his), but manages to get his block accepted by the main chain anyway? Can he screw the other pool members?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @TheBlueMatt and
Such a miner would be considered a non-share-chain miner. A miner could legitimately contribute shares and then switch to solo mining for instance. But this doesn't "screw" anyone. The hashrate contributed to his solo mining doesn't contribute to the pool and v/v.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BobMcElrath @TheBlueMatt and
Do share-chain miners regularly broadcast their mining progress to the share-chain network? How do they come to consensus on the shares & split percentages?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @TheBlueMatt and
The share chain is a blockchain of it's own. It has its own consensus rules and those rules include shares/split percentages. Mining is progress free but broadcast as blocks with a work target that is lower than that of Bitcoin. ("Weak blocks")
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BobMcElrath @TheBlueMatt and
Yeah I used "progress" loosely as proof that you have done some partial work short of the target. Very curious on how share-chain consensus works. BTC its dead simple: most accumulated & valid PoW chain. Is it similar to that or something different entirely? Since you use a DAG.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @TheBlueMatt and
Accumulated work is easy to measure: just add it all regardless of DAG structure. If you need double spend protection I have another algorithm...In the simplest case of a diamond sub-graph -- just order first the side with the smaller hash, for instance. But this generalizes.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BobMcElrath @TheBlueMatt and
Anywhere I can read up more on this DAG-based consensus? And just to be clear, the reason you're opting for a DAG is to reduce the orphan rates. So it's an optimization. Is this an accurate assessment? Would share-chain consensus work with just a simple linked-list, like BTC?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @TheBlueMatt and
Yes, it's called p2pool, and it's all but dead for a host of reasons. A DAG isn't really an optimization since a blockchain fails to reach consensus for fast block times, due to orphans. If you want fast blocks, a DAG is required.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @BobMcElrath @TheBlueMatt and
What do you think are the *main* reasons? that p2pool is dead
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
besides the high orphan rates
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.
