15 sats \ 3 replies \ @kr 9 Mar 2022 \ parent \ on: @niftynei AMA: lightning, FOSS, bitcoin, leveling up the next 100 btc devs at Base58 bitcoin
Appreciate the thoughtful responses here.
most block construction is fairly centralized now to a handful of mining pools, yet we're still wasting a bunch of bandwidth btw bitcoin nodes ... rather uselessly imo
What solution makes the most sense to you given the fairly centralized nature of mining pools today?
write
preview
1069 sats \ 2 replies \ @niftynei OP 9 Mar 2022
so like, i've been meaning to write a follow up post to ML post about this but whatever, sure staker news it is.
stratumv2. specifically, i think the mempool should be ported out of bitcoin-core to stratumv2.
reply
6 sats \ 1 reply \ @itsrealfake 9 Mar 2022 freebie
I'm not familiar with the specifics but i disagree out of hand... here is my 2 sats:
  1. transaction sending is critical bitcoin's functionality, i broadcast transactions that i am sent by friends from my node on a somewhat regular basis. therefore it should not be removed from core.
  2. individual node operators who would prefer not to relay transactions may reduce their bandwidth with Blocksonly mode.
From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.msg14012877
Blocksonly reduced the node's bandwidth usage by 88%.
That's significant. But i still think that bitcoin core needs to have the ability to receive & broadcast transactions, therefore it should not be removed from core.
What questions should i be asking to better understand your point of view?
reply
48 sats \ 0 replies \ @niftynei OP 9 Mar 2022
broadcasting a transaction is not the same as relaying a transaction to a miner?? you'd still be able to broadcast a transaction to the relay network from your node, you just wouldn't see other node's transactions until they were included in a block.
if you cared about participating in the bitcoin relay network, you could run stratumv2.
reply