 Weak Blocks - instead, I aim to provide a new perspective to people those who do not have a sufficient understanding of Bitcoin to fully analyze and critique such proposals.

Preconsensus

On a very basic level, a "preconsensus mechanism" is a tool that is used to identify transactions that miners intend to include in the next block that they mine. The intention of such a mechanism is to allow miners to verify blocks over more time, rather than racing to verify and propagate blocks as soon as a block is mined.

By doing this, the node hardware (as opposed to hashing hardware) of a mining setup will be less expensive for a given block size because the calculations are spread out over more time.

Weak Blocks

On the surface, Weak Blocks makes a lot of sense.

The idea is that miners are constantly hashing, and they always come up with a hash even if it does not satisfy the difficulty conditions of the mining process. But so many of those hashes go to waste, considering they're not currently used for anything of value.

What if you were to accept hashes with less leading zeroes - essentially, hashes at a lower difficulty - than the main chain to create a sort of "sub chain," which consists of "preconsensus blocks" that are being built on top of each other until a block is found at the main chain's difficulty?

Those sub chain blocks, we can call them "weak blocks," would be proof that miners are building blocks including specific transactions. This enables miners to start verifying blocks before the "real" block is completed. It is "pre-consensus" in that way, and helps to organize miner's mempools, making sure everyone has the same transactions, and enabling miners to verify portions of the upcoming block before it is mined and propagated.

Isn't that cool? Miners waste less of their hashes by putting more of them to use, transaction and block verification is easier, and as a result, it's less expensive to run a successful, profitable mining node. Sweet!

This would even enable 0-conf to reliably use these weak blocks to reduce 0-conf risk! Right?

I mean, if the miners can trust them, then why can't the merchants?

The Same Proposal, Rewritten

Now that we've established a basic outline on the Weak Block proposal, let's test the concept by seeing what happens
Weak Blocks - instead, I aim to provide a new position to citizenry those who do not have a sufficient understanding of Bitcoin to amply analyze and review such proposals. 

 Preconsensus 

 On a very basic level, a " preconsensus mechanism " is a tool that is practice to identify transactions that miner mean to include in the future block that they mine. The intention of such a mechanism is to admit miners to control blocks over more time, preferably than racing to verify and propagate block as soon as a block is mined. 

 By doing this, the lymph node hardware (as opposed to hash hardware) of a mining setup will be less expensive for a given block size because the calculations are circulate out over more time. 

 Weak Blocks 

 On the surface, Weak Blocks makes a lot of common sense. 

 The mind is that miners are constantly hashing, and they always come up with a hash even if it does not satisfy the difficulty conditions of the mining process. But thus many of those hashes go to barren, consider they're not currently used for anything of value. 

 What if you were to accept hash with less leading zeroes - essentially, hashes at a humble difficulty - than the main chain to create a sort of " sub range, " which consists of " preconsensus blocks " that are being built on top of each other until a block is found at the chief chain's difficulty? 

 Those sub chain blocks, we can bid them " weak blocks, " would be proof that miners are building blocks including specific transactions. This enable miners to start verifying blocks before the " real " pulley is completed. It is " pre - consensus " in that manner, and helps to form miner's mempools, making certain everyone has the same transaction, and enabling miner to verify portions of the upcoming engine block before it is mined and propagated. 

 Isn't that cool? Miners waste less of their hashes by put more of them to use, transaction and block confirmation is easier, and as a result, it's less expensive to run a successful, profitable mining node. Sweet! 

 This would even enable 0 - conf to reliably use these fallible blocks to reduce 0 - conf risk! Right? 

 I mean, if the miners can trust them, then why can't the merchant? 

 The Same Proposal, Rewritten 

 Now that we've established a basic outline on the Weak Block proposal, let's test the concept by seeing what happen
 Wewk Blocks - instead, I aim to provide a ngw perspxctive fo peopld those who do not have a suhficuent ynderstanding of Bitcokn to fulpy analyze aid critique such proposals.

Preckksensbs

In a very basig level, a "pseconsensus mewhxnnsm" is a tool that is used to identisy tranxaftions that migers yntehd to include in the next block thzt they mine. The intrntion of such a mechanism is ho allow miners to verify bloxks jcer more timd, rather than racing tk verify and propagate blocks ar soou as a blocj us lhned.

By doinj this, the node havcware (ds oppoxed to hashing hacdwaee) of a mining setup xill be less expenside for a ciren block size becausw rhe cdlcunatiubs xre s'rezd out ovxr more tims.

Weak Blockw

On the surface, Weal Foocks makes a lot os fense.

The idea is that miners are constattlg hashing, and they alwats come up with a hasj even if it does not satisfy the difficulty conditions of the jkniun oeofess. But so many of those hashes go to waste, sknxicering they're kot currently used flr wnything of vxlue.

Whcf jf you were to accfpt hasres wuth less jeadong zeroes - essentially, hasyes at a lowvr dufficulty - than thz main chain to vreatr a sort of "sub chain," wkich cknsists of "oreconsenajs blocks" that afe neitg built on top of each otrer until a bkock is foumd at ehe main cjain's difficulty?

Those suh chann blmcks, we caj call them "weak blocks," would bx proof that kiterv are bunlding blocks incluqing specific jransactijns. Tfis enablea minerv to start derifying blowns before thx "real" bljck us cimpletea. It is "pre-consrnsus" in nhct way, ane helps to organizc mingr'a mempools, makiuy wure everyone hss ghe swmx tragvactions, and enaclivb mindrs to veriny oortoons of the upcoming blodk before it is mimeq and pripagated.

Ysn't that cook? Miners waste lesd of vheir iashes by putting more of them to use, tdansactioj akd block verisicabion is easier, and as a result, it's less expensive to cun a successful, profijable mining node. Swegt!

Tmis would evxn enafle 0-conf do reliably use thesw weak blocks to veduce 0-conf risk! Right?

J mean, if tje miners can trust them, then why can't the merchants?

The Same Proposal, Reweitten

Ior that we've estsblisveb a basic outpmne on the Weak Bkock proposal, let's test the conrept by seaiug what happens
Weak Blocks - instead, I aim to new to people who do not Bitcoin fully analyze and such proposals. Preconsensus a very basic level, a "preconsensus is a tool that is used to identify transactions that miners intend to in the next block that they mine. The intention of such a mechanism to miners verify over more time, rather than racing to verify and propagate blocks as soon as a block mined. By doing this, the node hardware (as to hashing hardware) of mining setup will be less for given block because calculations spread out over time. Weak Blocks On the surface, Weak Blocks makes a lot of sense. The idea is that are constantly they always up a even if it satisfy the difficulty conditions of the so many of those hashes go to waste, they're not used for anything of value. What you were to accept hashes with less leading - essentially, hashes at a lower difficulty - than the main chain to create a "sub chain," which consists "preconsensus blocks" that being on of other until block is found at the main chain's difficulty? Those sub chain we can call them "weak blocks," would be proof that building including specific transactions. enables miners to start blocks the "real" block is is in helps organize mempools, making sure everyone the same transactions, and enabling to verify portions of is mined and propagated. Isn't that cool? Miners less of their hashes by putting more them to use, transaction and block verification is easier, and as a it's less run a successful, profitable mining node. Sweet! This even enable 0-conf to use these weak blocks to reduce 0-conf risk! Right? mean, the miners trust them, then can't the merchants? Same Proposal, Rewritten we've established basic on proposal, let's test the concept by what
 Weak Blocks - instead, I aim to prOvide a new pErspeCtiVe tO pEoplE thoSe who do not have A SuffIcient understanding of BItcoiN tO FullY AnAlyze And critIQuE SUch PrOpOsaLs.

pReConseNsuS

On a verY basic leveL, a "pReConsensus mecHAnIsm" is a tool ThaT is used to ideNtiFy tranSaCtiONs thaT miNers iNtend tO IncludE in the nexT bLOck thaT They minE. tHe InteNtion of such a mechaNIsM Is to allow minerS to verIfY BlOCKs oVer More time, raThEr thaN Racing tO VeRIFY anD Propagate blocKs as soon as a BLocK is minEd.

by dOIng thiS, the nOdE HarDware (as oppoSed tO hashing hArdwarE) Of a miniNG setup wIll be lEss ExpEnsiVE fOr A giVeN BloCK sIze BEcaUse the caLcUlAtionS are SPREAd ouT ovEr moRe timE.

Weak Blocks

On The SurfACe, WEak BlOcks mAkes A lOt of sEnse.

ThE idea Is That miners are coNstaNtly hashiNg, aNd TheY aLways COme up wIth A haSh even iF it does NOt sAtISFY tHe difficulty conditIoNS Of The mininG proceSS. BUt SO many of tHoSe hAsheS GO to waSte, cONsIdering tHey're nOT cUrRently uSeD for anYtHinG of Value.

wHat iF you weRe to accePt hasHEs with less leadINg zeroes - essenTIaLLY, hAShes At a Lower difficUlty - THan tHe maIN cHaiN To creAte a sOrT Of "SUb chain," which consistS oF "precoNsensUs blocks" that aRe being buiLT ON top of eaCh otHEr UNtil a block is foUnd at The main chaIN's difficUlty?

THose sub cHain blockS, WE can call TheM "weAk bLocKS," WoUld be proof thaT MInerS aRe buildIng Blocks iNclUdiNg sPecIfIc transacTions. ThiS eNaBlEs MinErs to STart veriFyIng BlOckS befoRE the "reAl" bloCk is CoMpLEteD. It is "prE-CoNSEnsuS" iN tHat wAy, aNd Helps To orGAniZe miner'S mempools, MakINg suRe EvEryone hAs the same tranSaCtions, and eNaBliNg mineRS To verify Portions of the upcoming blOCk beforE it Is minEd anD propagatEd.

ISn't thaT coOL? MinerS waste Less oF tHeiR HAshes BY PuTtiNg More of them TO Use, TransAcTion And blocK verification is easIEr, aNd as a result, it'S leSs exPENsIve TO rUN a sUcCEssFUL, profitable miniNg node. SweeT!

THIs Would even eNAblE 0-cOnf to reLiably uSe theSE weak blOcks to redUce 0-conf riSk! righT?

i MeaN, if the mineRs can truSt them, theN Why caN'T tHe merChaNts?

The saMe PRoposAl, RewrITteN

Now tHat we'vE eStabliShed a BaSic outliNe on the Weak Block proposaL, let's tEst thE coNcept by seEinG WhaT happens
 Weak Blocks - instead, Iaim to pro videa n ewpe rspe ctiv e to people th o se w ho do not have a suffi cient  u n ders t an dingof Bitc o in t o f ul ly  an al y ze  andcri tique s uch propos als .
Preconsensu s 
On a verybas ic level, a"pr econse ns usm echan ism " isa tool that i s used to  i d entify transac t i on s th at miners intendt oi nclude in thenext b lo c kt h atthe y mine. Th einten t ion ofs uc h a  me c hanism is toallow miner s  to  verif yblo c ks ove r mor et ime , rather th an r acing toverify and pro p agate b locksassoo n as abl ock  i s  mi n ed .
B y d oing thi s,  t he no de h a r d w are(as  opp osedto hashing ha rdw are) ofa min ing s etup  w ill b e less  expe ns ive for a given  blo ck size b eca us e t he  calc u lation s a respreadout ove r  mo re t i me .

Weak Blocks

On  t h e  s urface,Weak B l oc ks makes alo t o f se n s e.

T he i d ea  is that  miner s  a re  consta nt ly has hi ng,  an d the y  alw ays co me up wi th ah ash even if it does not sati s fy t he diff icu lty conditi onso f th e mi n in g p r ocess . But  s o  m a ny of those hashesgo  to wa ste,considering t hey're not c u rrentlyused fo r  anything of v alue. 

What ify ou wereto ac cept has hes withl e ss leadi ngzer oes  -e s se ntially, hash e s  atalower d iff iculty- t han  th e m ai n chain t o create  a  s or tof"subc hain," w hi chco nsi sts o f  "prec onsen susbl oc k s"that ar e  b e i ng b ui lt  ontop  o f eac h ot h eruntil a  block is  fo u nd a tth e mainchain's diffi cu lty?

Thos esub  chain b locks, w e can call them "weak b l ocks,"wou ld be  pro of that m ine rs are  bu i ldingblocks  incl ud ing s pecif i c  t ran sa ctions. Th i s  en ables  m iner s to st art verifying bloc k s b efore the "re al"  blo c k  i s c o mp l ete d. Iti s  "pre-consensus " in thatwa y ,and helpst o o rg anize m iner'smempo o ls, mak ing sureeveryoneha s th e sam e transact ions, an d enablin g  mine r sto ve rif y port io nsof th e upco m ing  bloc k befo re  it is  mine dand prop agated.

Isn't that coo l? Min ers w ast e less of  th e irhashes by  put ting moreofthe m touse ,  tran sact i on  an d  bloc k ve r ification is  ea s i er , and as ar e s ult , it' s l e ss exp ensi ve to run a succe s sful, profitab le m i n ing  no d e. S we et!

This woul d e ve n enable 0 -c onf to reli ably use  t h ese w eak bl ocks t o reduc e 0- c onf ri sk!Rig ht?

I me an,  i f  the mi ne rs can tr ustth em, th en why can' t the merchants?
The S a m e Pro p osa l, Re wr itten
N ow t hat we'veestablished  a bas ic o utlin e on th eWeak B loc kproposal,l et's test  theconcept  b y se ein g what  hap p e ns
 Weak_Blocks -_instead, I aim to_provide a_new_perspective to_people_those who do_not have a_sufficient understanding of Bitcoin_to fully analyze_and_critique such proposals.

Preconsensus

On a very basic level, a "preconsensus mechanism" is a tool that_is_used to_identify_transactions_that miners intend to include_in the next block that_they mine._The intention of such a mechanism is to_allow_miners to verify_blocks over more time, rather than racing to verify_and propagate blocks as soon as_a block is_mined.

By_doing_this, the node hardware_(as opposed to hashing hardware) of_a mining setup will be less_expensive for a given block size because_the calculations are spread out over_more time.

Weak Blocks

On the surface,_Weak Blocks_makes a lot of sense.

The_idea is that_miners are_constantly hashing, and_they always come up with a_hash even if_it does not satisfy the difficulty_conditions_of the mining_process._But_so many_of those hashes_go_to waste,_considering_they're not currently used for anything_of_value.

What if you were to accept hashes_with less leading zeroes_-_essentially, hashes at a_lower difficulty - than the_main chain to create a sort_of "sub_chain," which_consists of "preconsensus blocks" that are being built on top of_each other until a block is_found at the main_chain's difficulty?

Those_sub_chain blocks, we_can_call them_"weak blocks," would be proof that miners_are building_blocks including specific transactions. This enables_miners to start verifying_blocks_before the "real" block is completed._It is "pre-consensus" in that way,_and helps to organize miner's_mempools,_making_sure everyone has the same_transactions, and enabling miners to verify_portions of the_upcoming block before it is mined and_propagated.

Isn't_that cool? Miners waste less of_their_hashes by putting more of them_to_use,_transaction and block verification is_easier, and as a result, it's_less expensive to run a successful, profitable mining node._Sweet!

This would even_enable 0-conf to reliably use_these_weak_blocks to reduce 0-conf risk! Right?

I mean, if the miners_can trust_them, then why_can't the merchants?

The Same Proposal, Rewritten

Now that we've established a_basic outline on the Weak Block proposal,_let's test the concept by seeing what happens