On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 07:44:45PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Such a list of endpoints couldn't be static otherwise it's an artificial > barrier to enter in the mining competition, and as such a centralization > vector. Dynamic, trust-minimized discovery of the mining endpoints assumes > an address-relay network, of which the robustness must be high enough > against sophisticated sybil attacks. One current defense mechanism in core > to achieve that is selecting outbound peers based in different /16 subnets > as it's harder for an attacker to obtain IP addresses. Replicating this > mechanism for the mining endpoints binds the mining topology to the > Internet one, which is downgrading the mining competition.
I think a really simple way to put it is if we didn't have the mempool, it'd be good to create a free service that got transactions to miners in an equal opportunity, decentralized, way. A simple flood fill scheme would be a great way to do that... at which point you've re-invented the mempool. Nothing wrong with people running nodes that opt-out of transaction broadcasting, and it may even make sense for such nodes to preferentially peer with each other. But there's always going to be a need for a scheme like the existing mempool, so might as well just keep it. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
