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 B843987A for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 23:41:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D3ED28F for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 23:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacti10 with SMTP id ti10so9233673pac.0 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:15 -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=KbyNd4mSYkKpgwWJYVEDONej3ZCyLLizc6BE1hkL5wg=; b=PdxJNd4N+JlSWUwh9aJcNXAf+WFEuWsm2glrcpJMK38zjDqSYza0SuWRWK08Mxhofw 7lyQrbUeARrScbqwyl+WSsbLmpprDJNkDxNi+udt5OK0N9ZB3ZUkzhgM70/O3rF/BrLi 786N/I8j12M+CXoxSCjnfpZlIo9j25JwYp6fBry8vC2bSK7Zjouuxug361t7TP9XOuk5 r7EB4FRN0f85k6x+sHzdLLgF6jJgDCvEh8ATXFkYVuQvv2wQW542/oTcj+vNVRd6X5hw bHiw4SMY8lCm/4mYsPhnVqLtnNbQAhbyspKtveS5/p4mc1kXJdmpumZTvc55svFO438V oE/g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn25jUeHp7E7KeYchiE7AiaSLgZhA+SFC5YkhqNQKUoEhqnFIG9cWg3kQuKdUY8htI1McPc X-Received: by 10.66.233.164 with SMTP id tx4mr13358651pac.21.1440373275065; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:15 -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 fm5sm15027538pbb.60.2015.08.23.16.41.13 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:13 -0700 (PDT) To: Peter Todd References: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> <20150821003751.GA19230@muck> <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com> <20150821222153.GD7450@muck> <55D7B157.904@thinlink.com> <20150822000127.GA5679@muck> From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1010 Message-ID: <55DA5A1C.8080105@thinlink.com> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:16 -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: <20150822000127.GA5679@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: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 23:41:15 -0000 On 8/21/2015 5:01 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> I checked the scenario where only the radio is on, and found the car >> does not crash. > Incidentally, what's your acceptable revenue difference between a small > (1% hashing power) and large (%30 hashing power) miner, all else being > equal? (remember that we shouldn't preclude variance reduction > techniques such as p2pool and pooled-solo mode) > > Equally, what kind of attacks on miners do you think we need to be able to > resist? E.g. DoS attacks, hacking, etc. > None of this is in the scope of Pieter's simulation. If you think that casts doubt on my conclusions, then it casts doubt on his original conclusions as well.