public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: insecurity@national.shitposting.agency
To: sergiolerner@certimix.com
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reducing the block rate instead of increasing	the maximum block size
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 08:50:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cda31e339cfa74351ff7264ac07b406@national.shitposting.agency> (raw)

> So if the server pushes new block
> header candidates to clients, then the problem boils down to increasing
> bandwidth of the servers to achieve a tenfold increase in work
> distribution.

Most Stratum pools already do multiple updates of the header every block 
period,
bandwidth is really inconsequential, it's the latency that kills. At the 
present
time you are looking up to 15 seconds between the first and last pools 
to push
headers to their clients for the latest block. It's sort of 
inconsequential with
a 10 minute block time, but it cuts into a 1 minute one very heavily.

Some pools already don't do their own validation of blocks, but simply 
mirror
other pools, pushing them to be even more latency focused will just make 
this an
epidemic of invalidity rather than a solution.


> There are several proof-of-work cryptocurrencies in existence
> that have lower than 1 minute block intervals and they work just fine.
> First there was Bitcoin with a 10 minute interval, then was LiteCoin
> using a 2.5 interval, then was DogeCoin with 1 minute, and then
> QuarkCoin with just 30 seconds.

You can't really use these as examples of things going just fine. None 
of these
networks see anything approaching the Bitcoin transaction volume and 
none have
even remotely the same network size. Some Bitcoin forks use floats in 
consensus
critical code and work "just fine", for the moment. We can't justify 
poor
decisions with "but the altcoins are doing it".

Is there even a single study of the stale rates within these networks?



             reply	other threads:[~2015-05-11  9:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-11  8:50 insecurity [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-11  7:30 [Bitcoin-development] Reducing the block rate instead of increasing the maximum block size Thy Shizzle
2015-05-11  8:16 ` Dave Hudson
2015-05-11  7:03 Sergio Lerner
2015-05-11 10:34 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-11 11:10   ` insecurity
2015-05-11 11:49     ` Dave Hudson
2015-05-11 12:34       ` Christian Decker
2015-05-11 16:47 ` Luke Dashjr
     [not found] ` <5551021E.8010706@LeoWandersleb.de>
2015-05-12 18:55   ` Sergio Lerner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0cda31e339cfa74351ff7264ac07b406@national.shitposting.agency \
    --to=insecurity@national.shitposting.agency \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=sergiolerner@certimix.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox