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 56449305 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:14:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com (mail-pd0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 034411B3 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdrh1 with SMTP id h1so8503593pdr.0 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 20:14:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WEdWGDoOEF4M3lanKSTiusKDJbHB00eiUCV0MC0o/L4=; b=TszRLJGkFup+yYHZk6CRO2O0E2U8dtn0xZoIY3vUp1rrXPurBYSU1yBAwkng8mFcLr 6FdDmRItvV4v70aCJalrhXiWTiMqW+ZKYWzpr6v3rMi3HK3091klYIczgTXs0qWFms+C O2EdOqcJiu3B3/5S1q/qDPOUT8mftXDJIp2OEEnvjc0esOR3h5dV48cE9fdiMErsTVWh V+ZCg7YRmNcAMZYzEq3XYFyBrUfxVdA1gOdy5VvtQJ2HwNBxM38Dq3HDTkWSuCEosthV nozIuVjlpUz1rOvx7dWLkr5Wow6Ju4phAzdOYWvz3VUgohD6nW44HGxh7JBp2Al/aFJB 0a7g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCqT/By91FIFwqt7Mb3ZpmBlhXWRcr2qcYBJ0dawSr738NqM9e03+AGwr6PBoxMy/8bfVN X-Received: by 10.70.43.15 with SMTP id s15mr19229772pdl.14.1438830895684; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 20:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id wg1sm4503487pbc.7.2015.08.05.20.14.53 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Aug 2015 20:14:54 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55C2D12D.7070302@thinlink.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:14:53 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Superluminal communication and the consensus block size limit 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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 03:14:56 -0000 On 8/5/2015 4:24 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Miner A is able to process 100 M tx/block while miner B is only able > to process 10 M tx/block. > B needs to sell ASICs and buy 90 M tx worth of CPU. Or, if you cap blocksize at 10 M tx, than A needs to sell the exact same amount of CPU and buy the exact same amount of ASICs. Either way, Miner A ends up with the ASIC cost equivalent of 90 M tx worth of CPU in additional hashing advantage over B. The centralization has nothing to do with block size. It has to do with Miner A having more money than Miner B. Alternatively, you might need to add a few more crazy assumptions.