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
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D660A259
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:28:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com
[209.85.217.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BF8B14C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so50342649lbc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=5d71H0vAas0qwCEOnvNsLvSFNFEbQbJLHynYSPXTLzA=;
b=Lu8zS/8uOwnFE6j7XHugy5L5CktaKOhcTKU8AmYKovWhIp/3CZaBIfGa7IXuWNcwPt
qkXxX/GH7+KJ+hO+YrNULv5U2vOMVVfIl+fFKvKfxP8uwYHpkBz1cxYIe0/q6TV+vZEM
0OA8rJBiLZuW++9E/6GgZiCi4QlN5nUCuyWrK0C/AuOfD/LZWakTnG4X0SUch5ctMVKe
n5t6uI4JGszGPZuCJfySrUk8e7vCjkXWFUy5QrM9d4r3VI1LncpgVG3iy1zPI9JwP1MW
7vp8ma5f0uyeVQD11YnDylhVmbX7mmz1qkuh95ZoSSNxN1TNBfi6p8VY3HDgYOqMqQXh
XMLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlqGpc/733b3qUa1RrNNucXi2zinN/gblZk6AHW3/d8AH9LYDHFkVQMP2nkBZ8JulydwXJF
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.219.3 with SMTP id pk3mr9476684lac.114.1440188911180;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info>
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>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:28:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDq8AE7hwR+HRMvgQW+DgZ-3ZeKshq4CpkusCphQ0BwEeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 <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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:28:34 -0000
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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?
Please start with the centralization metrics we both agree are
necessary instead of keeping insulting me publicly and privately.
> (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).
I'm not inventing this, he recently said so himself publicly on this
mailing list:
"I don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with
mining centralization"
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009960.html
It is therefore not surprising that non-developers and developers with
less experience in Bitcoin than Gavin have similar misunderstandings.
That claim seems in contradiction with his earlier analysis:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
"I ran some simulations, and if blocks take 20 seconds to propagate, a
network with a miner that has 30% of the hashing power will get 30.3%
of the blocks."
That's why I was surprised when he denied the relation between the
consensus maximum size and mining centralization, but hey, people
change their minds and that's completely fine. I change my mind about
many things quite often myself. For example, I will change my mind
about not touching the maximum blocksize consensus rule as soon as I
see some data that convinces that the proposed sizes are not very
risky.
|
