PPLNS with job declaration

[sjors]

@lorbax

then this score_f(i) \approx 0scoref(i)≈0

Try the following numbers:

• fake fees: 1 million BTC
• shares: 0.0001% of the pool for the interval

So they could steal approximately 1 BTC.

@lorbax

In this case, the JDS validates each share.

I assume you mean each proposed template (DeclareMiningJob), not each share?

If there is some unknown transaction during validating the shares, then it will be asked to the miner through “PovideMissingTransactions” message, as for Sv2 protocol.

This takes time and bandwidth. And in order to verify if the new transaction is actually valid the JDS has to insert it into its mempool. And in order to do that it may need to evict other conflicting transactions first. Doing this for every DeclareMiningJob may not scale very well.

@lorbax

For coinbase-only templates the JDS doesn’t know the transactions and can’t verify anything.

I understand that “coinbase-only templates” is a share with just the coinbase transaction, so it is an “empty weak block”. But then you refer at the transactions, so there is more than one. I do not understand, can you explain?

I’m referring to a recent proposal that allows a DeclareMiningJob message with just a merkle proof for the coinbase transaction, without revealing which transactions are in the block.

I can’t find the link to the actual propososal, just a reference to in from the SRI call minutes: Discord

coinbase_only Mode and DeclareMiningJob

• Optionality for DeclareMiningJob : Its usage depends on the mode.
• Flag Renaming: The flag REQUIRES_ASYNC_JOB_MINING in AllocateMiningJobToken.Success will be renamed to better reflect its purpose.
• Dropping Synchronous Case: Only two modes will remain:
• coinbase_only JD Mode: No DeclareMiningJob is sent.
• template JD Mode: DeclareMiningJob is sent.