Re: BATA BTA ◈ SCRYPT POW/POS HYBRID & MASTERNODES & PROFIT SHARE PLATFORM
I have never seen a PoW minable coin where the block hashes aren't actually the proof of work (a bunch of zeros in front of the hash)
Why is bata designed this way? Just a general curiosity
Why is bata designed this way? Just a general curiosity
Hi here is an example of a raw block:
{
"hash": "2959d2161759004644c9bda9ac37507a29b67b7bb3580ba1bcc610c3fa8b11d9",
"confirmations": 1,
"size": 241,
"height": 779555,
"version": 4,
"merkleroot": "954945425eb40dbb2fc3d2d6ddc87d92ba268dc341d0fe03e71e76246e8599a1",
"tx": [
"954945425eb40dbb2fc3d2d6ddc87d92ba268dc341d0fe03e71e76246e8599a1"
],
"time": 1506434691,
"nonce": 2002999098,
"bits": "1c02b746",
"difficulty": 94.25787966,
"chainwork": "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000c0c4830ef0bc35",
"previousblockhash": "48e9cfa2a689877d4985f63df903a6027c1c14c35ed02107473d72fc351b607c"
}
If you are referring to chain work then an explanation is available here:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/26869/what-is-chainwork
"The chainwork value is really just the total amount of work in the chain."
I know about chain work, its the cumulative work on the chain. I was wondering about the block hash, which tells the work on the individual block. Why is it hashed this way in bata.
Example a peercoin pow block:
Code:
{
"hash": "0000000000000000ee2f9eeca90dd0708459b7e78de9c64d19bc3e73fd2d8e8a",
"size": 3790,
"height": 324835,
"version": 1,
"merkleroot": "e97bfe5e6c6d4fbf4acb8956ae0228dd6f2047b690b8245e128683ce8688dcb7",
"time": "2017-09-26 11:24:01 UTC",
"nonce": 2768994299,
"bits": "1902e43a",
"difficulty": 1485349089.4013,
"mint": 50.94,
"previousblockhash": "4235e040578bae46616f11daa644fd1cb485db7c6a5948f5e40608785aa4a6b8",
"nextblockhash": "00000000000000011b4841bb4aead702f2e266ba645b7484c3a239bf67101f3d",
"flags": "proof-of-work",
"proofhash": "0000000000000000ee2f9eeca90dd0708459b7e78de9c64d19bc3e73fd2d8e8a",
"entropybit": 0,
"modifier": "213b2338aec7bc5a",
"modifierchecksum": "4ba28af2",
}
"hash": "0000000000000000ee2f9eeca90dd0708459b7e78de9c64d19bc3e73fd2d8e8a",
"size": 3790,
"height": 324835,
"version": 1,
"merkleroot": "e97bfe5e6c6d4fbf4acb8956ae0228dd6f2047b690b8245e128683ce8688dcb7",
"time": "2017-09-26 11:24:01 UTC",
"nonce": 2768994299,
"bits": "1902e43a",
"difficulty": 1485349089.4013,
"mint": 50.94,
"previousblockhash": "4235e040578bae46616f11daa644fd1cb485db7c6a5948f5e40608785aa4a6b8",
"nextblockhash": "00000000000000011b4841bb4aead702f2e266ba645b7484c3a239bf67101f3d",
"flags": "proof-of-work",
"proofhash": "0000000000000000ee2f9eeca90dd0708459b7e78de9c64d19bc3e73fd2d8e8a",
"entropybit": 0,
"modifier": "213b2338aec7bc5a",
"modifierchecksum": "4ba28af2",
}
The proofhash is the same as the block hash.
Again I am just curious, if there is a special reason for this design decision