From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89226279 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:38:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148096.authsmtp.net (outmail148096.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.96]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21C0102 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L0c0ff056696; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:38:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck (s75-157-242-51.bc.hsia.telus.net [75.157.242.51]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L0bqFl093951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:37:57 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:37:51 -0700 From: Peter Todd To: Tom Harding Message-ID: <20150821003751.GA19230@muck> References: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> X-Server-Quench: df6f1a78-479c-11e5-b398-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAMUGUATAgsB AmMbW1VeU1p7XGo7 bA9PbABafEhKXRtv UVdMSlVNFUssBmAB VF9oDhl7dAxDeTB3 ZE5qECQNWhJ7JEF1 X0pTHD4bZGY1bX1N U0lQagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDSg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx5 UwcEKFMZSEIPD3YX QBYeBzIrGUAJDw8y MxchK1hUNkIWOUZ6 ClozVBo9Og9aIQRG dwAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.157.242.51/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:38:02 -0000 --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 8/20/2015 3:23 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >>For the 73th time or so this month on this list: > >> > >>The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization > >>(which is currently pretty bad). > > > >Instead of posting all these messages with bald claims why don't > >you work on a decentralization metric which you can point to? > >(instead of trying to claim people don't understand things which > >is clearly not the case, You are just attacking people you don't > >agree with). >=20 >=20 > Pieter built a nice simulation tool and posted some results. >=20 > I tweaked the parameters and ran the tool in a way that tested ONLY > for hashrate centralization effects, and did not conflate these with > network partitioning effects. >=20 > I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large blocks. >=20 > The only person who commented on this result agreed with me. He > also complimented Pieter's insight (which is entirely appropriate > since Pieter did the hard work of creating the tool). >=20 > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008820.h= tml You used 20% as the size of the large miner, with all the small miners having good connectivity with each other. That is *not* the scenario we're worried about. The math behind the issue is that the a miner needs to get their blocks to at least 33% of hashing power, but more than that is unnecessary and only helps their competition; you simulated 20%, which is under that threshold. Equally, why are you assuming the small miner group is well connected to each other? You probably didn't get any replies because your experiment is obviously wrong and misguided, and we're all busy. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJV1nLcXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwNDAyZmU2ZmI5YWQ2MTNjOTNlMTJiZGRmYzZlYzAyYTJi ZDkyZjAwMjA1MDU5NGQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udzkdwf/U1pW1uXaVNxkCnz3h1+MtdFH AUSP26OpLZszf+einkRMI4HwyRHjsb1jlmDTRurSTPRKNvDBFl1nC6zw/z+gC1JL 4D3wk0iiMBhCissenmuaoO0GuY9/AZw4dTAdxdIynOC49n72gdHjkkr0XTppsmCl y6w6ZFgbnmH1YlAJ+UIdZ0BDvvcBSBe7/huaSbVdRbBH3S41qvUIJLfwQuaD/8SR g1lUWnKRcCqa1Td0dzDg0g0ZO1qgZWTwa2fsXFvHfLivnbBF9r1a1KxuLsGYbR2z +mHAj6yrQkTQp6jRbXXwFB1PfXKbiBh/OEkrGefNqLVHdAYxBLYUFeHkMJDXHg== =sNv+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4--