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 D660A259 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:28:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com [209.85.217.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BF8B14C for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so50342649lbc.2 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5d71H0vAas0qwCEOnvNsLvSFNFEbQbJLHynYSPXTLzA=; b=Lu8zS/8uOwnFE6j7XHugy5L5CktaKOhcTKU8AmYKovWhIp/3CZaBIfGa7IXuWNcwPt qkXxX/GH7+KJ+hO+YrNULv5U2vOMVVfIl+fFKvKfxP8uwYHpkBz1cxYIe0/q6TV+vZEM 0OA8rJBiLZuW++9E/6GgZiCi4QlN5nUCuyWrK0C/AuOfD/LZWakTnG4X0SUch5ctMVKe n5t6uI4JGszGPZuCJfySrUk8e7vCjkXWFUy5QrM9d4r3VI1LncpgVG3iy1zPI9JwP1MW 7vp8ma5f0uyeVQD11YnDylhVmbX7mmz1qkuh95ZoSSNxN1TNBfi6p8VY3HDgYOqMqQXh XMLA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlqGpc/733b3qUa1RrNNucXi2zinN/gblZk6AHW3/d8AH9LYDHFkVQMP2nkBZ8JulydwXJF MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.219.3 with SMTP id pk3mr9476684lac.114.1440188911180; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> References: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:28:31 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Milly Bitcoin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 20:28:34 -0000 On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:23 PM, 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? Please start with the centralization metrics we both agree are necessary instead of keeping insulting me publicly and privately. > (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). I'm not inventing this, he recently said so himself publicly on this mailing list: "I don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with mining centralization" http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009960.html It is therefore not surprising that non-developers and developers with less experience in Bitcoin than Gavin have similar misunderstandings. That claim seems in contradiction with his earlier analysis: http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners "I ran some simulations, and if blocks take 20 seconds to propagate, a network with a miner that has 30% of the hashing power will get 30.3% of the blocks." That's why I was surprised when he denied the relation between the consensus maximum size and mining centralization, but hey, people change their minds and that's completely fine. I change my mind about many things quite often myself. For example, I will change my mind about not touching the maximum blocksize consensus rule as soon as I see some data that convinces that the proposed sizes are not very risky.