From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5l9A-0002sq-CT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:31:08 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of coinapex.com designates 209.85.218.72 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.72; envelope-from=yifu@coinapex.com; helo=mail-oi0-f72.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f72.google.com ([209.85.218.72]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5l98-0000M0-9N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:31:08 +0000 Received: by oiyy130 with SMTP id y130so103656025oiy.0 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:31:00 -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=0deLW/1rPCgSd8OjtLrUuBuCvVhHogZSO2LT2MmyCV0=; b=gToIc/dTLVa3rlI7xGBds8PxpNck83SiGMXH97BrMfdWZ6Z8LTavEc1+PNZCeBbRgJ 0Lh+bZJP/REl/MdnXLwtqbwr6ZGFjFNrGaZ5P9yD0OlypwIF6I2BdkqIbrO/fJ5Ph/gc KAnvcpc64ngaLB1Jl5L3URnQGV+oWJmNbrAt549bd3ZmXBrtaWFwpTdQPXvI7e1ab4Gf weO2JQitQxF+kBYudFN5y5D+KBBwgJ0oP9ekfQ5i9I0Pxc8gOo1v4IKS7HOrSwR63GII xXEfnNmnh8ma9tkOVhS8BAKl5t4NLVjWM52/i56nNaggMbg3/I8GfEvWNzbRBH8d0usl G9rg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlrjYcUdB5HkbOcIg62VJnp1TrTSgsuWggI0F6tr8eGhbAiL29oVxVcKk6FevrGu7kAn2D6 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.72.4 with SMTP id v4mr8873374oia.82.1434677460811; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.115.83 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55833F87.3090408@thinlink.com> References: <557DBDCC.5040106@student.ethz.ch> <55833F87.3090408@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:31:00 -0400 Message-ID: From: Yifu Guo To: Tom Harding Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002 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 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: 1Z5l98-0000M0-9N 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, 19 Jun 2015 01:31:08 -0000 --001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Nice insight Peter, This further confirms the real problem, which doesn't have much to do with blocksize but rather the connectivity of nodes in countries with not-so-friendly internet policies and deceptive connectivity. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Tom Harding wrote: > On 06/12/2015 06:51 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > >> However, it does very clearly show the effects of > >> larger blocks on centralization pressure of the system. > > On 6/14/2015 10:45 AM, Jonas Nick wrote: > > This means that your scenario is not the result of a cartel but the > result of a long-term network partition. > > > > Pieter, to Jonas' point, in your scenario the big miners are all part of > the majority partition, so "centralization pressure" (pressure to merge > with a big miner) cannot be separated from "pressure to be connected to > the majority partition". > > I ran your simulation with a large (20%) miner in a 20% minority > partition, and 16 small (5%) miners in a majority 80% partition, well > connected. The starting point was your recent update, which had a more > realistic "slow link" speed of 100 Mbit/s (making all of the effects > smaller). > > To summarize the results across both your run and mine: > > ** Making small blocks when others are making big ones -> BAD > ** As above, and fees are enormous -> VERY BAD > > ** Being separated by a slow link from majority hash power -> BAD > > ** Being a small miner with blocksize=20MB -> *NOT BAD* > > > Configuration: > * Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000 > * Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 1000000.000000 > * Expected average block size: 4800000.000000 > * Average fee per block: 0.250000 > * Fee per byte: 0.0000000521 > Result: > * Miner group 0: 20.404704% income (factor 1.020235 with hashrate) > * Miner group 1: 79.595296% income (factor 0.994941 with hashrate) > > Configuration: > * Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000 > * Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000 > * Expected average block size: 20000000.000000 > * Average fee per block: 0.250000 > * Fee per byte: 0.0000000125 > Result: > * Miner group 0: 19.864232% income (factor 0.993212 with hashrate) > * Miner group 1: 80.135768% income (factor 1.001697 with hashrate) > > Configuration: > * Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000 > * Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 1000000.000000 > * Expected average block size: 4800000.000000 > * Average fee per block: 25.000000 > * Fee per byte: 0.0000052083 > Result: > * Miner group 0: 51.316895% income (factor 2.565845 with hashrate) > * Miner group 1: 48.683105% income (factor 0.608539 with hashrate) > > Configuration: > * Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000 > * Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000 > * Expected average block size: 20000000.000000 > * Average fee per block: 25.000000 > * Fee per byte: 0.0000012500 > Result: > * Miner group 0: 19.865943% income (factor 0.993297 with hashrate) > * Miner group 1: 80.134057% income (factor 1.001676 with hashrate) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -- *Yifu Guo* *"Life is an everlasting self-improvement."* --001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nice insight Peter,

This further confir= ms the real problem, which doesn't have much to do with blocksize but r= ather the connectivity of nodes in countries with not-so-friendly internet = policies and deceptive connectivity.


On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:0= 0 PM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2015 06:51 PM, Pieter Wuille w= rote:
>> However, it does very clearly show the eff= ects of
>> larger blocks on centralization pressure of the system.

On 6/14/2015 10:45 AM, Jonas Nick wrote:
> This means that your scenario is not the result of a cartel but the re= sult of a long-term network partition.
>

Pieter, to Jonas' point, in your scenario the big miners are all= part of
the majority partition, so "centralization pressure" (pressure to= merge
with a big miner) cannot be separated from "pressure to be connected t= o
the majority partition".

I ran your simulation with a large (20%) miner in a 20% minority
partition, and 16 small (5%) miners in a majority 80% partition, well
connected.=C2=A0 The starting point was your recent update, which had a mor= e
realistic "slow link" speed of 100 Mbit/s (making all of the effe= cts
smaller).

To summarize the results across both your run and mine:

** Making small blocks when others are making big ones -> BAD
** As above, and fees are enormous -> VERY BAD

** Being separated by a slow link from majority hash power -> BAD

** Being a small miner with blocksize=3D20MB -> *NOT BAD*


Configuration:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi= ze 20000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, = blocksize 1000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 4800000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 0.250000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000000521
Result:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.404704% income (factor 1.020235 with hashr= ate)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 79.595296% income (factor 0.994941 with hashr= ate)

Configuration:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi= ze 20000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, = blocksize 20000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 2000000= 0.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 0.250000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000000125
Result:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 19.864232% income (factor 0.993212 with hashr= ate)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.135768% income (factor 1.001697 with hashr= ate)

Configuration:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi= ze 20000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, = blocksize 1000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 4800000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 25.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000052083
Result:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 51.316895% income (factor 2.565845 with hashr= ate)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 48.683105% income (factor 0.608539 with hashr= ate)

Configuration:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi= ze 20000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, = blocksize 20000000.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 2000000= 0.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 25.000000
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000012500
Result:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 19.865943% income (factor 0.993297 wit= h hashrate)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.134057% income (factor 1.001676 with hashr= ate)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development



--
=
Yi= fu Guo
"Life is an everlasting self-improvement."
--001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002--