Author: Enrique Arizón Benito 2018-01-17 22:34:11
Published on: 2018-01-17T22:34:11+00:00
The email thread revolves around a proposal aimed at improving the security of Bitcoin mining. The original poster suggests an algorithm where the consensus chooses who can participate in the next round, after which selected miners participate in the round. The proposed algorithm introduces the concept of "spent" next-coinbase versus "un-spent" one, similar to UTXO. A next-coinbase would only be valid if it has not been previously used to mine a block. The thread proposes an expiring thread model to address issues with large miners gradually pushing N higher by progressively committing new “next-coinbase” addresses that differ in the next bit for all previously seen combinations of bits. Additionally, it is suggested that the hash must run over "many" different blocks and it must include the next next-coinbase (to force calculating the hash after choosing a next-coinbase). Discussions also touch on how N is determined, how reorgs are handled, how difficulty interacts with the proposed algorithm, how miner anonymity is preserved, and how the scheme reduces electricity usage.One concern raised is that large mining farms submitting multiple different "next-coinbase" addresses in many different blocks could lead to increased mining centralization. Overall, the thread concludes that while the proposed algorithm reduces the electricity bill, the hardware needed stays the same since for each round the miner participates in, it will try to mine as fast as possible and so use as much hardware as possible.Apart from the proposed algorithm, the context includes a Segwit nested address and a PGP RSA code. The quote "'If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.' No! Because I do nothing wrong, I have nothing to show." by nullius is also mentioned. Lastly, the email thread mentions an HTML attachment being scrubbed from a URL.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T23:51:49.915465+00:00