Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Spec Changes for Job Declaration + Mining Protocols #120

Open
plebhash opened this issue Jan 7, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #121
Open

Spec Changes for Job Declaration + Mining Protocols #120

plebhash opened this issue Jan 7, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #121

Comments

@plebhash
Copy link
Contributor

plebhash commented Jan 7, 2025

after a lot of discussion between @Fi3, @TheBlueMatt, @Sjors, @GitGab19 and myself, we realized that some aspects of the spec were not clear

in summary:

  • "async" terminology is causing a lot of confusion... different people hold different interpretations of the term, so we need more clear wording around this feature
  • ShortIds and SipHash were originally introduced as a strategy for optimizing bandwidth of DeclareMiningJob, but it was later realized that the computation trade-offs don't really seem to justify it (as discussed in Make more clear how we use the block header to calculate the txs short ids (job declarator) #99)
  • DeclareMiningJob message needs a prev_hash field, so that JDS can avoid acknowledging work for old tips
  • JDP SubmitSolution message needs a version field so that JDS can reconstruct the block before propagation (as it was partially rolled)
  • remove extranonce_size, min_ntime and version fields of SetCustomMiningJob message are redundant and should be removed
@plebhash plebhash changed the title Spec Changes Spec Changes for Job Declaration + Mining Protocols Jan 24, 2025
@plebhash plebhash linked a pull request Jan 24, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant