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 0DB431018 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:22:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36920232 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:22:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so69512878wic.0 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:22:26 -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=Kjt2aFguqXSfQKL+xVXQ6qyfTK+ZVY+Mj29YuqHgFpk=; b=gv0oAbLEbS3ciZiRqf+hMC0cxhKruzw2XiCS4T93ZSu7dLuqTPQj0sZAtASzb34SUY A0jHr45v61xqzCd1xYwpQkOofWHrkMurwJa4fDNGX7mekMYBdj9C0e4aAG0k4xfLLUJs jADgh/BZt8ynZW13WGAs2nAmYjqZh7Bw251T6lwf0m0V8/gpC4jTkWAS60GOtTVla2jW ZidQ2q37HSWSDqBzl5jvX9lYE+mDawlkgTMbsfMJHLIioD+8QM4RDXfg0TOZKec0lZT6 cskeB5/rNmdvzgmYmYYf5IXa3cuidCFg7v7kqoWgSAKHVosbML227khomR1ZSPk6yArl ETbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlRynDlB60FwRyDWLkI1MB6etqAguTfUOXPVEC/gCyb/B0UzL++joRJedT/evzCtIgZJmlE MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr80322098wjc.109.1441988546576; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:22:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:22:26 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Marcel Jamin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141aa1a16dd30051f7b1ff1 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, 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] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise 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, 11 Sep 2015 16:22:29 -0000 --089e0141aa1a16dd30051f7b1ff1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unfortunately the relation between block maximum size and mining centralization is much more complex than that. On Sep 9, 2015 3:00 PM, "Marcel Jamin" wrote: > I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operation > and people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet > connection is infinitesimally small. > > 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n : > >> >> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > >> > I propose to: >> > >> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without >> driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently >> running a fullnode probably have some capacity left. >> >> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization? >> > > --089e0141aa1a16dd30051f7b1ff1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Unfortunately the relation between block maximum size and mi= ning centralization is much more complex than that.

On Sep 9, 2015 3:00 PM, "Marcel Jamin"= <marcel@jamin.net> wrote:
I thi= nk the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operation and peo= ple who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet connection i= s infinitesimally small.

2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc>= ;:


On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I propose to:
>
> a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without dr= iving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently runnin= g a fullnode probably have some capacity left.

What about the risk of further increasing mining centralizat= ion?


--089e0141aa1a16dd30051f7b1ff1--