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
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from
<bounces+404635-86d7-bitcoin-development=lists.sourceforge.net@email.bitpay.com>)
id 1U5yPu-0002KK-FS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:59:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of
email.bitpay.com designates 198.37.155.136 as permitted sender)
client-ip=198.37.155.136;
envelope-from=bounces+404635-86d7-bitcoin-development=lists.sourceforge.net@email.bitpay.com;
helo=o19837155136.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net;
Received: from [198.37.155.136] (helo=o19837155136.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1U5yPr-0000J8-Af for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:59:58 +0000
Received: by 10.37.85.72 with SMTP id mf94.11518.511CDFC2D
Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:59:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (unknown [209.85.217.171])
by mi16 (SG) with ESMTP id 511cdfc2.40cf.d34b0a
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:59:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id gg13so1753531lbb.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:59:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references
:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=t9EmpdiStvESTuXVwwGhsMhYv3BLnZ6DcLz2xXIsdYo=;
b=TklrHRi6pn9OWfCSfr/JlBuYyayEZRH+oibpj4p3M+IKDHCrKVLkmo0qoMfBAyB2fL
sx+eAl4FGAzWkgRYe+Be4ja2dzTXxViqEVPapAClXK/H5RrM+J9MLlCJwMrsWYI81LBY
zft3I7mXw5nQQTwN2svvEdEjMUI2Il6sW59kySgoFsQwt+6vwsmFh0QPgTsUlnI1ZrrH
v2pgZdlf9O7mSVsbpIgjA5Weph9KAl4wUWriUi0PsyEmsz4ULKSxDO5k+wzuvucywXAf
Jp51mGv0h8zodfutPbGWj+34w9CfQpOUDYNELIkeg8Jwz3Ox4dNcjPeyhW9FMGB7jIrS
EwOw==
X-Received: by 10.152.110.116 with SMTP id hz20mr14675593lab.18.1360846784564;
Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:59:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.114.1.47 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:59:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [71.204.90.78]
In-Reply-To: <20130214060744.GA15157@savin>
References: <CAN1xFdrX61HsRxsXxXW+i0FzjQkoNVRaDG-2yJNOfYUi5FnsPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTwjXCGFS-N8a8Ro80ahxXT01dCfqWYOqmwCkdRramaMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN1xFdrGiWmn_EaBNMXXZAV38oeqP14YiMzMZQrkA+WL9QEMfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR5=nLTBQUBzjZQs91AVw5XSTiqe-KB_T9R9wKfBrOq6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2RWamFxebVJExo_4NT4WPPE=Fd4deG1AFmT=GqjD=vwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CADb9v0L9RgfK8=FaM-tZm7AcYMhP6+OAyWu4x+3pLrrQ8yoeLw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQRineAXRs9uaLRv-YaXMfjd+ietzd1aRmYV98N0y=OuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CADb9v0Kf1TfzWnUb3J8YNsLUxsbkeFX2nZXRnW5JJnmfDV9psQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20130214060744.GA15157@savin>
From: Stephen Pair <stephen@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:59:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CADb9v0L53kZfiBYtzCLtCsBVdeZz5CHtwBsM1CBDcCh9v-T=HA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5485810300d1f04d5aed5ac
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm3+kbDRfbDpJDIWeZXrfWUBpesl2nrho18HsmcyrAJxs4ZGwZ3a50uzMkyu96RbX0tIPOS
X-Sendgrid-EID: MKV9IjI68is80Jqz/eG9wzL0RPGq34wm6zZKLyf9fV5O8HKFIs9vx7uQQ4ODbOsXIAJUiC6KiCgXtvj5BKyZnzPS64C9dwKsLkKoek2l4M1S3b7H3aqzScxVZvh8Mt91g6lxdFlLSa/MKsWy+Zs9Gw==
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 BODY: HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
X-Headers-End: 1U5yPr-0000J8-Af
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule
modifications into the block chain
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:59:59 -0000
--bcaec5485810300d1f04d5aed5ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:44:11PM -0500, Stephen Pair wrote:
> > One of the beauties of bitcoin is that the miners have a very strong
> > incentive to distribute as widely and as quickly as possible the blocks
> > they find...they also have a very strong incentive to hear about the
> blocks
> > that others find. There will not be an issue with blocks being
> "jealously
>
> The idea that miners have a strong incentive to distribute blocks as
> widely and as quickly as possible is a serious misconception. The
> optimal situation for a miner is if they can guarantee their blocks
> would reach just over 50% of the overall hashing power, but no more. The
> reason is orphans.
>
Perhaps, but a miner trying to target just over 50% of the network will run
the very real risk that they'll only reach 49%.
What about the case for centralization if the block size remains capped? I
see a far greater risk of centralization in that scenario than if the cap
were to be removed. The reason is very simple, bitcoin would ultimately
become useful only for very high value, settlement transactions. Only the
mega corporations and banks would be using it directly, everyone else would
be doing daily transacting in centrally issued currencies of one form or
another. As the banks and mega corps learned about the utility of bitcoin
and began to use it en masse, they would start to take the whole network
off the public internet and put it on a higher speed and more reliable
backbone. Those corporations would establish mining agreements among
themselves to ensure none of the participants could take over the system
and compromise it, while at the same time keeping the operational costs to
a minimum. Bitcoin is now a great alternative to the wire transfer system,
but has no value to the average person wanted to have cheap and private
transactions over the Internet. Maybe Litecoin starts to fill that niche.
--bcaec5485810300d1f04d5aed5ac
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:07 AM=
, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09=
:44:11PM -0500, Stephen Pair wrote:<br>
> One of the beauties of bitcoin is that the miners have a very strong<b=
r>
> incentive to distribute as widely and as quickly as possible the block=
s<br>
> they find...they also have a very strong incentive to hear about the b=
locks<br>
> that others find. =A0There will not be an issue with blocks being &quo=
t;jealously<br>
<br>
</div>The idea that miners have a strong incentive to distribute blocks as<=
br>
widely and as quickly as possible is a serious misconception. The<br>
optimal situation for a miner is if they can guarantee their blocks<br>
would reach just over 50% of the overall hashing power, but no more. The<br>
reason is orphans.<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" style>Perhaps, but a miner trying to targe=
t just over 50% of the network will run the very real risk that they'll=
only reach 49%.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra" style>
What about the case for centralization if the block size remains capped? =
=A0I see a far greater risk of centralization in that scenario than if the =
cap were to be removed. =A0The reason is very simple, bitcoin would ultimat=
ely become useful only for very high value, settlement transactions. =A0Onl=
y the mega corporations and banks would be using it directly, everyone else=
would be doing daily transacting in centrally issued currencies of one for=
m or another. =A0As the banks and mega corps learned about the utility of b=
itcoin and began to use it en masse, they would start to take the whole net=
work off the public internet and put it on a higher speed and more reliable=
backbone. =A0Those corporations would establish mining agreements among th=
emselves to ensure none of the participants could take over the system and =
compromise it, while at the same time keeping the operational costs to a mi=
nimum. =A0Bitcoin is now a great alternative to the wire transfer system, b=
ut has no value to the average person wanted to have cheap and private tran=
sactions over the Internet. =A0Maybe Litecoin starts to fill that niche.</d=
iv>
</div>
<img src=3D"http://email.bitpay.com/wf/open?upn=3DFPVR34OW0iTCykNVpPzODvIQt=
2S-2BzCNFBszsV6r9gX31pUdL7Qn-2Be1uVJ4jTNxzgYyVuFkz66B49udB7GowSK6FlDLEpLX0i=
83qDuxZ-2B6wCaTrIcDL5TQIR399tU3T-2BCLIvQzg7vqWpGpBoFNtFufoJ0onkhKeZrltQ4MR5=
sfZuyEgsNRWjZVwktnGfCaw8efRS1KRnYwCoD3p8z0jQuyQ-3D-3D" alt=3D"" width=3D"1"=
height=3D"1" border=3D"0" style=3D"height:1px !important;width:1px !import=
ant;border-width:0 !important;margin-top:0 !important;margin-bottom:0 !impo=
rtant;margin-right:0 !important;margin-left:0 !important;padding-top:0 !imp=
ortant;padding-bottom:0 !important;padding-right:0 !important;padding-left:=
0 !important;"/>
--bcaec5485810300d1f04d5aed5ac--
|
