Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com
	designates 209.85.215.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.172;
	envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com;
	helo=mail-ea0-f172.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FFE335820B1BFF4F8E8619F446F2D87F4C20067D@MSGPEXCEI32B.mfad.mfroot.org>
References: <FFE335820B1BFF4F8E8619F446F2D87F4C20067D@MSGPEXCEI32B.mfad.mfroot.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:27:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPaL=UWEwWOtLtj684jNAhpDV3C8rWZ+dUVC6FWMmWpARRzUOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
To: "Goss, Brian C., M.D." <Goss.Brian@mayo.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 1. Re: On the optimal block size and why
 transaction fees are 8
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Goss, Brian C., M.D.
<Goss.Brian@mayo.edu> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> What is the propagation time within a pool?  If my pool is made up of a ton
> of fancy ASICs connected by 300 baud modems, how does that affect your
> analysis (ie, Q for a mining pool is effectively a function of time as
> well)?

The propagation time you're thinking of is from the pool to the miner, and even
now that is significant for pools that do not pay for stale shares. I remember
an Australian pool mentioning that problem on their website as a reason for the
pools existence.

I would expect selfish mining, as well as orphans becoming more important in
general, to centralize the physical location of hashing power too. If the 100ms
delay to your pool impacts profits you'll have an incentive to locate your
mining equipment physically closer to the pool. The next step is pools wanting
to physically locate themselves closer to other pools.

It would not be good if all Bitcoin mining was done in Iceland...

> Brian
>  P.S. I hope these are not ignorant questions; if they are, please feel free
> to disregard!

Not ignorant at all IMO.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSg+CpAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPufwIAKNpBBvlRvSQZOzMJvghG7fX
lCNliohDKw9kdKJJjN1T73Ssl06wGbBe881k4c4r7fHeNDRQZbrFsj+uBsFyUhmy
CF70KiOKuowDlWwyWMxZbbyinK0mEKC7J/hJVOt15FHubLnq71Utb+I2L7seyHlo
2E2byG4UnofoD5L+hGzfD6FJ/zYEHtTKgFw7Y1+ZSmAxlIcdrcpH7tPmUzFD7JPi
RnaK1BH7hpM6FyZQUhSC/tW7mYswNEasvouBE4V1vSySZb6S43kiED2Q4uH3W0+A
UtbyRQ7yT3BOLGB2OO/L92tg6S7WRyMtvQoevJkEIAnUywD3YWaZnBbf0IM4LWg=
=6750
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----