Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF4C097 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:47:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DFF5EB for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so82556740iod.3 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DaTSpNYlvL5zkdCfC60bSTJGD+qNi+MVp134w/u8eDg=; b=skgmBf++aP4sJQaYFW8PzPtsLhySkyNW11kN8Xyv3UQjMJ+P5NKheb4vTUYHydRkbS itn1/dOcNGyCzHVZWLVG8kMItTJWmN/yPqiQXUJlDCdTIGg/svWMQE5IKxhi1vKXT2vS BzCa5gi8B3Y4GQSmaUFuVi0eHLdtUX4tREq4JBI0JYZsh83rFdgKeg9Fj6cYoHJu9jpL v4Zcn53iHT7dPwC2ZMfV9p4qBsyAly7jtbOdV5F2o6SLrAdJqo5YmWMA1BKz29QBZMXo yn/RUs4TFevEr07TRsz+GU4w/m6LmI/Dt02agi9BhCg+sKoyNyONtM56J8yNKNyC3umV joRw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.17.166 with SMTP id 38mr11466175ior.21.1439588822767; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.97.135 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55CACFEF.1010909@mail.bihthai.net> References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> <55CACFEF.1010909@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: Elliot Olds To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eddb8676272051d4c646d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:47:03 -0000 --001a113eddb8676272051d4c646d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Venzen Khaosan wrote: > > On 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > It depends on which use case's reliability that you focus on. For > > any specific use case of Bitcoin, that use case will be more > > reliable with a larger block size (ignoring centralization > > effects). > > I read through your message and see the point you're trying to make, > but would like to point out that it is not useful to talk about > hypothetical scenarios involving Bitcoin that include the supposition > "ignoring centralization effects". > Pieter was arguing for the existence of an effect on reliability that was orthogonal to centralization risk. When arguing that this effect doesn't really exist, it's appropriate to hold centralization risk constant. --001a113eddb8676272051d4c646d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Venzen Khaosan <venzen@mail.bihthai.n= et> wrote:
On = 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It depends on which use case's reliability that you focus on. For<= br> > any specific use case of Bitcoin, that use case will be more
> reliable with a larger block size (ignoring centralization
> effects).

I read through your message and see the point you're trying to m= ake,
but would like to point out that it is not useful to talk about
hypothetical scenarios involving Bitcoin that include the supposition
"ignoring centralization effects".

Pieter was arguing for the existence of an effect on reliability that= was orthogonal to centralization risk. When arguing that this effect doesn= 't really exist, it's appropriate to hold centralization risk const= ant.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
--001a113eddb8676272051d4c646d--