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 BCA9B8EA for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:16:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 704C3115 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padfo6 with SMTP id fo6so16393617pad.1 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:16:39 -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:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=u9Np8NVzH/apEbXJkkhjQeFXTwHOFiVDUkCkiAIQuRM=; b=jRvBndFi9I8KWzOPyB7WmYoKqtdmOY1ALUGJDU2QJ39f6nrITaeUucQ35vmwM12Rq0 Z5uIkMcNEgLUnqlgSTrtkajwFaU0gwRlUif4MCK2NbxCpqUDIlWkFcLKi9ZaNwPpJqto VQEMfnORa0bI9gmBw8urgTuhYLFGKV0SMg9ZhUUAJHuDqwXGygpUrTy7i0d/c9qLH/uJ I79+KGxjVYtfBGNppFivlSlqt7wU9FgsdvQw70jY49/xLdfpm0rWIGbFwmHoD5fMRPMF +bbXKUNy1R53R2vWTUhueq0ZcnR9B7T+j1KbsiqUD0XB1fyJNcR947zncYGydCxShQFS AEwA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkBDvy8MUAgLAR2yHFfj6LBQjAJ73KmLkcRlja+gZOu+2Cddn1+OnCaP8ilufAiyjfd5Ytp X-Received: by 10.66.161.232 with SMTP id xv8mr21705082pab.137.1440198999179; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:16:39 -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 hh3sm9003066pbc.8.2015.08.21.16.16.37 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:16:37 -0700 (PDT) To: Peter Todd References: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> <20150821003751.GA19230@muck> <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com> <20150821222153.GD7450@muck> From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1010 Message-ID: <55D7B157.904@thinlink.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:16:39 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150821222153.GD7450@muck> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 23:16:39 -0000 On 8/21/2015 3:21 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > To use a car analogy, Pieter Wuille has shown that the brake cylinders > have a fatigue problem, and if used in stop-and-go traffic regularly > they'll fail during heavy braking, potentially killing someone. You've > countered with a study of highway driving, showing that if the car is > only used on the highway the brakes have no issues, claiming that the > car design is perfectly safe. No. If we must play the analogy game, it was found that the car crashes when the brakes are bad (minority hash power partitioned) the radio is on (partitioned miners had small individual hashrate). I checked the scenario where only the radio is on, and found the car does not crash.