From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YyhQy-0001Z4-Nk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:08:20 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=pindar.wong@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YyhQx-0004jL-N1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:08:20 +0000 Received: by wivl4 with SMTP id l4so40077578wiv.1 for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 07:08:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.195.13.1 with SMTP id eu1mr25103582wjd.131.1432994893709; Sat, 30 May 2015 07:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.156.226 with HTTP; Sat, 30 May 2015 07:08:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 22:08:13 +0800 Message-ID: From: Pindar Wong To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd9131a9ac74a05174d1fa1 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 (pindar.wong[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: 1YyhQx-0004jL-N1 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 14:08:20 -0000 --047d7bd9131a9ac74a05174d1fa1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > 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? > Perhaps we should arrange to run some more 'simulations' with miners from China and elsewhere? Let me know there's interest to do. p. > > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --047d7bd9131a9ac74a05174d1fa1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen &= lt;gavinandres= en@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240= 902@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest = blocks on
the network.

Thanks for giving your= opinion!

=C2=A0
Bad miners could attack us and the n= etwork 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 m= iner (big or small) producing smaller blocks:


(the 0.3% advantage I DID = find was for the situation 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 said that server bandwidth is much more expensive in China; what would= be the difference in your bandwidth costs between 2MB blocks and 20MB bloc= ks?

Perhaps we should arr= ange to run some more 'simulations' with miners from China and else= where?

Let me know there's interest to do.
=

p.
<= span class=3D"">

=C2=A0
--
--Gavin Andresen

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

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


--047d7bd9131a9ac74a05174d1fa1--