Here's how I understand it, and @Bitcoin Mechanic can correct me if I have anything incorrect. Pool-mining normally requires the pool to create the block templates using their node, which are sent out to the miners on the pool to hash. Any block found is then sent to the pool and broadcast out to the network using their node. The template they send to the miners does not include any kind of reward split, because ALL of the rewards goes to the pool, and they internally credit sats to each miner's account, after taking their fee. DATUM changed this whole dynamic. Miners on @OCEAN that are using DATUM are not getting a block template from the pool at all. They are connecting their miners to their own Bitcoin full-nodes to get block templates to hash, and if their miner finds a block, their own node will broadcast that block to the network. As such, they are solo-mining, since there is no need to send the block to the pool for it to be broadcast using the pool's node. The only thing that DATUM requests from OCEAN is a reward split. This is entirely voluntary, though. They could just give themselves the entire reward. However, this means that OCEAN would exclude them from the reward splits that other miners are including in their block templates. OCEAN knows how much should go to each miner because DATUM sends OCEAN the valid shares they produced. Part of those shares being considered valid by OCEAN is that they are using the reward splits provided to them, rather than lottery mining by only paying themselves the reward from any block they might find.

Replies (7)

Exactly. To add some nuance - we don't exclude "them" if they start submitting shares with bogus splits - any work they did before that's still in the share window remains qualified. There's no concept in TIDES of identity or people.
Ok, so if I understand that correctly, Datum flow assumes that miners behave honestly. What if there are bad actors that would join Ocean with their own Datum servers and then when block is found included only their address in coinbase? Is that even an attack? Does that rouge miner win anything? Does it disrupt Ocean’s operations? At first glance I do not see any incentive for bad actors to act like that. Not sure if I miss anything. image
Yes, I think it'd be an attack because Ocean would be crediting the attacker's shares to receive payouts from other honest miners, while they'd get to keep the full reward when they find a block. However the protocol doesn't assume that miners behave honestly because they share their templates with the pool for inspection: Sharing the full template is not strictly necessary, though. I believe the datum_gateway could just send the block header, the coinbase transaction and a Merkle proof of inclusion of that transaction. But I don't know if that's what they have in mind for future versions of DATUM.
It is my understanding that whatever is submitted to @OCEAN in order to get credit for reward splits would make it obvious if you were mining a template that only paid out to your own Bitcoin address, excluding the rest of the pool from any rewards you, such that OCEAN would no longer include you in those reward splits sent to other miners. Am I incorrect in that assumption @Bitcoin Mechanic ?