Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:37:51 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <20150821003751.GA19230@muck>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
Precedence: list


--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 3:23 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >>For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
> >>
> >>The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
> >>(which is currently pretty bad).
> >
> >Instead of posting all these messages with bald claims why don't
> >you work on a decentralization metric which you can point to?
> >(instead of trying to claim people don't understand things which
> >is clearly not the case,  You are just attacking people you don't
> >agree with).
>=20
>=20
> Pieter built a nice simulation tool and posted some results.
>=20
> I tweaked the parameters and ran the tool in a way that tested ONLY
> for hashrate centralization effects, and did not conflate these with
> network partitioning effects.
>=20
> I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large blocks.
>=20
> The only person who commented on this result agreed with me.  He
> also complimented Pieter's insight (which is entirely appropriate
> since Pieter did the hard work of creating the tool).
>=20
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008820.h=
tml

You used 20% as the size of the large miner, with all the small miners
having good connectivity with each other.

That is *not* the scenario we're worried about. The math behind the
issue is that the a miner needs to get their blocks to at least 33% of
hashing power, but more than that is unnecessary and only helps their
competition; you simulated 20%, which is under that threshold. Equally,
why are you assuming the small miner group is well connected to each
other?

You probably didn't get any replies because your experiment is obviously
wrong and misguided, and we're all busy.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d

--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGrBAEBCACVBQJV1nLcXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwNDAyZmU2ZmI5YWQ2MTNjOTNlMTJiZGRmYzZlYzAyYTJi
ZDkyZjAwMjA1MDU5NGQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udzkdwf/U1pW1uXaVNxkCnz3h1+MtdFH
AUSP26OpLZszf+einkRMI4HwyRHjsb1jlmDTRurSTPRKNvDBFl1nC6zw/z+gC1JL
4D3wk0iiMBhCissenmuaoO0GuY9/AZw4dTAdxdIynOC49n72gdHjkkr0XTppsmCl
y6w6ZFgbnmH1YlAJ+UIdZ0BDvvcBSBe7/huaSbVdRbBH3S41qvUIJLfwQuaD/8SR
g1lUWnKRcCqa1Td0dzDg0g0ZO1qgZWTwa2fsXFvHfLivnbBF9r1a1KxuLsGYbR2z
+mHAj6yrQkTQp6jRbXXwFB1PfXKbiBh/OEkrGefNqLVHdAYxBLYUFeHkMJDXHg==
=sNv+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4--