From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YyhGe-0004xf-0H for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:57:40 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YyhGc-000768-Ml for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:57:39 +0000 Received: by labko7 with SMTP id ko7so70081266lab.2 for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.43.110 with SMTP id v14mr12734574lal.4.1432994252155; Sat, 30 May 2015 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sat, 30 May 2015 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 09:57:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YyhGc-000768-Ml Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 13:57:40 -0000 --001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on > the network. Thanks for giving your opinion! > Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial > big blocks. How? I ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a big miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner (big or small) producing smaller blocks: http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners (the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situation where EVERYBODY was producing big blocks). > We think > the max block size should be increased, but must be increased > smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB, > and so on. Thanks. Why 2 MB ? You said that server bandwidth is much more expensive in China; what would be the difference in your bandwidth costs between 2MB blocks and 20MB blocks? -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> w= rote:
Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining = the biggest blocks on
the network.

Thanks for giving your opinio= n!

=C2=A0
Bad miners could a= ttack us and the network with artificial
big blocks.

How?

I= ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a big = miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner (b= ig or small) producing smaller blocks:

http= ://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners

(the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situatio= n where EVERYBODY was producing big blocks).
=C2=A0
We think
the max block size should be increased, but must be increased
smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB,
and so on. Thanks.

Why 2 MB ? =C2=A0 You sa= id that server bandwidth is much more expensive in China; what would be the= difference in your bandwidth costs between 2MB blocks and 20MB blocks?

=C2=A0
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954--