On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Drak <d...@zikula.org> wrote: > If I understand the issue properly, this seems like a pretty elegant > solution: if two blocks are broadcast within a certain period of eachother, > chose the lower target. That's a provable fair way of randomly choosing the > winning block and would seem like a pretty simply patch.
uh. and so when my solution is, by chance, unusually low... I am incentivized to hurry up and release my block because? I've simulated non-first-block-heard strategies in the past (in the two nearly tied miner with network latency model) and they result in significant increase in large (e.g. >>6 block) reorgs). It's easy to make convergence worse or to create additional perverse incentives. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
