diff options
| author | Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> | 2015-06-12 20:39:46 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-12 18:39:52 +0000 |
| commit | 45aeeb9361656fb418b3c920fbf25d327f964485 (patch) | |
| tree | 81767a2d6b2c693aee89a2cfb3be048d1b2aeab9 /ac | |
| parent | 18c153cbc9b96d87aa1728dfe3332a7fb64ec080 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-45aeeb9361656fb418b3c920fbf25d327f964485.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-45aeeb9361656fb418b3c920fbf25d327f964485.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mining centralization pressure from non-uniform propagation speed
Diffstat (limited to 'ac')
| -rw-r--r-- | ac/c889e649f5f70753071f57c6ab32fc1a6c0681 | 137 |
1 files changed, 137 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ac/c889e649f5f70753071f57c6ab32fc1a6c0681 b/ac/c889e649f5f70753071f57c6ab32fc1a6c0681 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b533b67fe --- /dev/null +++ b/ac/c889e649f5f70753071f57c6ab32fc1a6c0681 @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +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 <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1Z3Trs-00069w-FV + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:39:52 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.213.49 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.213.49; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; + helo=mail-yh0-f49.google.com; +Received: from mail-yh0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Trr-0004DH-Hf + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:39:52 +0000 +Received: by yhpn97 with SMTP id n97so17128212yhp.0 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.170.77.194 with SMTP id t185mr20611564ykt.44.1434134386062; + Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.37.93.67 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.37.93.67 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <20150612183054.GD19199@muck> +References: <CAPg+sBi5fYHGLv4wtWbWE7jov8CX=q9UX=vhxDVepG6JfX30+g@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T1=+S+dAdwASECUCkrVaMFT0TcmL7MiwnCuCx0MkF6sWw@mail.gmail.com> + <20150612183054.GD19199@muck> +Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:39:46 +0200 +Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjD1y6jTzdWqGLhBxve8HfKy0mxg0tYBTWjBH1PAukmow@mail.gmail.com> +From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3 +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 + (pieter.wuille[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: 1Z3Trr-0004DH-Hf +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:39:52 -0000 + +--001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +If there is a benefit in producing larger more-fee blocks if they propagate +slowly, then there is also a benefit in including high-fee transactions +that are unlikely to propagate quickly through optimized relay protocols +(for example: very recent transactions, or out-of-band receoved ones). This +effect is likely an order of magnitude less important still, but the effect +is likely the same. +On Jun 12, 2015 8:31 PM, "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: + +> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 01:21:46PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: +> > 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? +> +> Then simulate first the relay network assuming 100% of txs use it, and +> secondly, assuming 100%-x use it. +> +> For instance, is it in miners' advantage in some cases to sabotage the +> relay network? The analyse say yes, so lets simulate that. Equally even +> the relay network isn't instant. +> +> -- +> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org +> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 +> + +--001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<p dir=3D"ltr">If there is a benefit in producing larger more-fee blocks if= + they propagate slowly, then there is also a benefit in including high-fee = +transactions that are unlikely to propagate quickly through optimized relay= + protocols (for example: very recent transactions, or out-of-band receoved = +ones). This effect is likely an order of magnitude less important still, bu= +t the effect is likely the same.</p> +<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jun 12, 2015 8:31 PM, "Peter Todd" = +<<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org">pete@petertodd.org</a>> wrote:= +<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= +0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Fri, Jun 12, 201= +5 at 01:21:46PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:<br> +> Nice work, Pieter. You're right that my simulation assumed bandwid= +th for<br> +> 'block' messages isn't the bottleneck.<br> +><br> +> But doesn't Matt's fast relay network (and the work I believe = +we're both<br> +> planning on doing in the near future to further optimize block propaga= +tion)<br> +> make both of our simulations irrelevant in the long-run?<br> +<br> +Then simulate first the relay network assuming 100% of txs use it, and<br> +secondly, assuming 100%-x use it.<br> +<br> +For instance, is it in miners' advantage in some cases to sabotage the<= +br> +relay network? The analyse say yes, so lets simulate that. Equally even<br> +the relay network isn't instant.<br> +<br> +--<br> +'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta= +rget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br> +0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778<br> +</blockquote></div> + +--001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3-- + + |