From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3SeP-0001bd-Kj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:21:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3SeO-0001tX-PV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:21:53 +0000 Received: by labko7 with SMTP id ko7so25097775lab.2 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.22.99 with SMTP id c3mr16502362laf.32.1434129706394; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:21:46 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba 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: 1Z3SeO-0001tX-PV Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mining centralization pressure from non-uniform propagation speed 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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:21:53 -0000 --089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Nice work, Pieter. You're right that my simulation assumed bandwidth for 'block' messages isn't the bottleneck. But doesn't Matt's fast relay network (and the work I believe we're both planning on doing in the near future to further optimize block propagation) make both of our simulations irrelevant in the long-run? Or, even simpler, why couldn't the little miners just run their block-assembling-and-announcing code on the other high-bandwidth-side of the bandwidth bottleneck? -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nice work, Pieter. You're r= ight that my simulation assumed bandwidth for 'block' messages isn&= #39;t the bottleneck.

But doesn't Matt's fast relay network (and the wor= k I believe we're both planning on doing in the near future to further = optimize block propagation) make both of our simulations irrelevant in the = long-run?

Or, even simp= ler, why couldn't the little miners just run their block-assembling-and= -announcing code on the other high-bandwidth-side of the bandwidth bottlene= ck?

--
--
Gavin Andresen

=
--089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba--