Author: Jeremy 2021-12-15 21:53:50
Published on: 2021-12-15T21:53:50+00:00
In a response to a question about how his DCFMP (Decentralized Compute Framework Mining Pool) differs from p2pool, Jeremy Rubin emphasized that his blog post on the topic is meant as an introduction to a complex topic and not a literature review of all possible designs and prior art. He notes that while both DCFMP and p2pool aim to decentralize mining, they differ significantly in approach. DCFMP is focused on making the pooling function client-side validatable within the existing Bitcoin chain, rather than relying on a new network running on top of Bitcoin, as p2pool does. DCFMP also lacks the higher resolution on share assignment that is a core value proposition of p2pool. Rubin argues that DCFMP's innovations lie in its Payment Pool and non-interactive channel-based features, which p2pool lacks but could adopt to solve payout problems. He advocates for designing such micro pools inside DCFMP, rather than creating a unified layer of networked software all miners are running on top of Bitcoin, which he sees as a major risk and architecturally bad idea. This would allow smaller P2Pools to aggregate their hashrate trustlessly with the main DCFMP shares. Rubin acknowledges that he was not very familiar with p2pool before coming up with DCFMP, and that the lineage of his conceptual work was determinism, payment pools, and then realizing they could do something for mining. In conclusion, Rubin emphasizes that his blog post is not intended to be a comprehensive comparison of all possible designs and prior art, and that he believes there are many different approaches to achieving the goal of decentralizing mining.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T03:32:31.345905+00:00