MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55DA5A1C.8080105@thinlink.com>
References: <CAED3CWgTOMFgaM6bBfU0Dn-R0NrdrhGAQo34wHEneYkTtB4Opg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEieSeSw04FYCCa-Df+V6BgJo1RHqPvJWt9t=c-JCC=dnhraWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDp0o5DBzuoyZ=SFvnBXTwPYFWhdOqUPkP_M_3koNMVP1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com>
	<20150821003751.GA19230@muck> <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com>
	<20150821222153.GD7450@muck> <55D7B157.904@thinlink.com>
	<20150822000127.GA5679@muck> <55DA5A1C.8080105@thinlink.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 04:27:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDojSnZTsXk2XNGi5pAPmBSvRXm5VsZ4PfWOPHby-VbfWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
Precedence: list

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 8/21/2015 5:01 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>>
>>> I checked the scenario where only the radio is on, and found the car
>>> does not crash.
>> Incidentally, what's your acceptable revenue difference between a small
>> (1% hashing power) and large (%30 hashing power) miner, all else being
>> equal? (remember that we shouldn't preclude variance reduction
>> techniques such as p2pool and pooled-solo mode)
>>
>> Equally, what kind of attacks on miners do you think we need to be able to
>> resist? E.g. DoS attacks, hacking, etc.
>>
>
> None of this is in the scope of Pieter's simulation.
>
> If you think that casts doubt on my conclusions, then it casts doubt on
> his original conclusions as well.

As far as I know, "his conclusions" were that there was an effect,
while suspending judgement on whether that effect was high enough to
be important for a given size or not.