From 7656c7ccb254ff22136c5ff4b731327ccfd1eb70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:45:22 -0700 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] "A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit"--new research paper suggests --- 63/04388e172c9d1be38f4fb34e67d49c41791c57 | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 113 insertions(+) create mode 100644 63/04388e172c9d1be38f4fb34e67d49c41791c57 diff --git a/63/04388e172c9d1be38f4fb34e67d49c41791c57 b/63/04388e172c9d1be38f4fb34e67d49c41791c57 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bd75b48de --- /dev/null +++ b/63/04388e172c9d1be38f4fb34e67d49c41791c57 @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E6ED83D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 5 Aug 2015 23:45:56 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com + [209.85.220.50]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C43B14C + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 5 Aug 2015 23:45:55 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by pawu10 with SMTP id u10so47339001paw.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 05 Aug 2015 16:45:55 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date + :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type + :content-transfer-encoding; + bh=XlILZrKhqjXyFyz69Yxl22+TtdKvA7RSWTrz41AlgKM=; + b=SwXqJpBGOD53D4TaRPWCb5+VbRS8CebOvPFtrfg9ovmQj/5p5PN2KH6CRHSANBUrdt + ZylC0caP6VYwhY2/7jpjcy3IYbggFCOltA2+wchzErtAeEBocQqDaoFRHNTPs3ypbXbE + ioIE7VPSXoVn68nWVI+OPIg9UCuZpQ1nWIcoAE8Hl3Dd0qek+SwIeEDq+F+aLFZlGbBf + g90Sfff2M83BuZ4uL2DYvcNsWYPNOF2zsoeAHp1DjsNdIUX/7Z36DKIXe/8hVyla4Z27 + OR5lV4OokT5l80OOgJIVFEmAYJwHVqPOg2idNVu+VGKBnJTs+mhx47d/kcMoNIxi+3Am + I7YQ== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmyoA4nrBwh86zXPdSl8KUM5LVFLpgk9Db6SK1tRnvoNo0IfczW1V/dTY/Q+Q1S6UFC93H +X-Received: by 10.68.173.97 with SMTP id bj1mr24543510pbc.122.1438818355215; + Wed, 05 Aug 2015 16:45:55 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) + by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id + p1sm4179817pdb.3.2015.08.05.16.45.52 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> + (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); + Wed, 05 Aug 2015 16:45:53 -0700 (PDT) +To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +References: <CABsx9T1E1s=4h-SxLTOAXK4GniZrUekcEb6zDdTDFG+h7X98MA@mail.gmail.com> + <1438640036.2828.0.camel@auspira.com> + <CABsx9T2A-Mz9z=TTifbL2_sKCDvy8coRpNse+0vff6EbXbp8cg@mail.gmail.com> + <BF420F3B-044C-46F6-8880-FEEB9A3DC748@gmx.com> + <3162BC78-EC0B-4DAA-A472-D143389DDD8A@hashingit.com> + <7F9283D5-5F0F-4318-BE64-A1C20A5B7606@gmx.com> + <2312E340-EA7D-48DC-B3FF-319D6AF9E955@hashingit.com> +From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> +Message-ID: <55C2A012.7080908@thinlink.com> +Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:45:22 -0700 +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 + Thunderbird/38.1.0 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +In-Reply-To: <2312E340-EA7D-48DC-B3FF-319D6AF9E955@hashingit.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, + RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] "A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block + Size Limit"--new research paper suggests +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:45:56 -0000 + +On 8/5/2015 3:44 PM, Dave Hudson via bitcoin-dev wrote: +> I do suspect that if we were to model this more accurately we might be +> able to infer the "typical" propagation characteristics by measuring +> the deviation from the expected distribution. + +The paper models propagation using a single time value that is a +function of block size. Modeling the propagation distribution (which is +totally separate from the poisson model of block production) would add a +lot of complexity and my guess is the outcome would be little changed. + + +>> On 5 Aug 2015, at 15:15, Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com> wrote: +>> Although a miner may not orphan his own block, by building on his own block he may now orphan two blocks in a row. At some point, his solution or solutions must be communicated to his peers. + +Why complicate the analysis by assuming that a miner who finds two +blocks sequentially does not publish the first, or that other miners +would orphan miner's first block unless both were very quick? In +general you don't consider anything beyond 1 block in the future, which +seems fine. + + +>>> I suspect this may well change some of the conclusions as larger block makers will definitely be able to create larger blocks than their smaller counterparts. +>> It will be interesting to see. I suspect that the main result that "a healthy fee market exists" will still hold (assuming of course that a single miner with >50% of the hash power isn't acting maliciously). Whether miners with larger value of h/H have a profit advantage, I'm not sure (but that was outside the scope of the paper anyways). + +Correcting for non-orphaning of one's own blocks could be as simple as +adding a factor (1 - h/H) to equation 4, which it appears would leave +hashpower as an independent variable in the results. But at worst, the +discussion can be considered to apply directly only to low-hashpower +miners right now. + +Overall, the paper does not predict big changes to per/kb fees or spam +costs for the kinds of block sizes being discussed for the immediate +future (8MB). But it does conclude that these fees will rise, not fall, +with bigger blocks. + +Also it is welcome that this paper actually mentions the bitcoin +exchange rate as a factor in relation to block size (it points out that +a spam attack is much more expensive in fiat terms today than it was +years ago). + + -- cgit v1.2.3