1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
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 B843987A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 23:41:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com
[209.85.220.46])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D3ED28F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 23:41:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pacti10 with SMTP id ti10so9233673pac.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:15 -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:cc:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=KbyNd4mSYkKpgwWJYVEDONej3ZCyLLizc6BE1hkL5wg=;
b=PdxJNd4N+JlSWUwh9aJcNXAf+WFEuWsm2glrcpJMK38zjDqSYza0SuWRWK08Mxhofw
7lyQrbUeARrScbqwyl+WSsbLmpprDJNkDxNi+udt5OK0N9ZB3ZUkzhgM70/O3rF/BrLi
786N/I8j12M+CXoxSCjnfpZlIo9j25JwYp6fBry8vC2bSK7Zjouuxug361t7TP9XOuk5
r7EB4FRN0f85k6x+sHzdLLgF6jJgDCvEh8ATXFkYVuQvv2wQW542/oTcj+vNVRd6X5hw
bHiw4SMY8lCm/4mYsPhnVqLtnNbQAhbyspKtveS5/p4mc1kXJdmpumZTvc55svFO438V
oE/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn25jUeHp7E7KeYchiE7AiaSLgZhA+SFC5YkhqNQKUoEhqnFIG9cWg3kQuKdUY8htI1McPc
X-Received: by 10.66.233.164 with SMTP id tx4mr13358651pac.21.1440373275065;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
fm5sm15027538pbb.60.2015.08.23.16.41.13
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1010
Message-ID: <55DA5A1C.8080105@thinlink.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:16 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150822000127.GA5679@muck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
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: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 23:41:15 -0000
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.
|
