On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised myself that Gavin never accepted the
compromises offered by others in this space for a slow growth solution

What compromise? I haven't seen a specific proposal that could be turned into a pull request.

Something important to note in Gavin Andresen's analysises of this issue
is that he's using quite optimistic scenarios for how nodes are
connected to each other.

NO I AM NOT.

I simulated a variety of connectivities; see the .cfg files at

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin_miningsim

The results I give in the "are bigger blocks better" blog post are for WORST CASE connectivity (one dominant big miner, multiple little miners, big miner connects to only 30% of little miners, but all the little miners connected directly to each other).

For instance, assuming that connections between
miners are direct is a very optimistic assumption

Again, I did not simulate all miners directly connected to each other.

I will note that miners are VERY HIGHLY connected today. It is in their best interest to be highly connected to each other.

that depends on a
permissive, unregulated, environment where miners co-operate with each
other - obviously that's easily subject to change!

Really? How is that easily subject to change? If it is easily subject to change, do bigger blocks have any effect? Why are 1MB blocks not subject to change?

I talk about "what if your government bans Bitcoin entirely" here:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/big-blocks-and-tor

... and the issues are essentially the same, independent of block size.

--
Gavin Andresen