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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B41918EA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:21:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148108.authsmtp.net (outmail148108.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.108])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E821C11D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:21:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7LMLvmw013578;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:21:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck (S0106e091f5827ad2.ok.shawcable.net [24.71.232.17])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7LMLrJ6050215
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:21:56 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:21:53 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <20150821222153.GD7450@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>
<20150821003751.GA19230@muck> <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H4SyuGOnfnj3aJqJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com>
X-Server-Quench: 08ff232f-4853-11e5-b398-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAMUGUATAgsB AmMbWVdeUlx7XGQ7 aQ5PagRDYElMQQRt
T01BRU1TWkFvfWF9 RGQYUhxydQRDNnl3 Y0AsXngNCkZ5dxBg
RkZRFnAHZDJldTIc WUhFdwNWdQpKLx5A PgF4GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYAhE RAgILFkbRUIaVhU7 QQwYGjErEEFNbSQv
JBsnLBY2GEEaMQ0J MEksEXcRI1c5AxU2
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.71.232.17/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:21:59 -0000
--H4SyuGOnfnj3aJqJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 09:52:43AM -0700, Tom Harding wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 5:37 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev w=
rote: >> I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large
> blocks. >> > > 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
> I gave the small miners collectively the same hashrate as the large
> miners in the original test. I made them well-connected because
> everyone was well-connected intra-partition in the original test.
>=20
> I just varied one thing: the size of the miners. This is a principle of
> experiment design, in science.
>=20
> Next you'll probably claim that second-order and cross-term effects
> dominate. Maybe you can find the time to prove it.
This is a security issue: if you can find a likely scenario where the
system fails, that's a problem and we need to fix it.
You've taken the scenario where the system fails, and changed the
conditions to create a scenario where it works. That's not particularly
interesting or noteworthy.
To use a car analogy, Pieter Wuille has shown that the brake cylinders
have a fatigue problem, and if used in stop-and-go traffic regularly
they'll fail during heavy braking, potentially killing someone. You've
countered with a study of highway driving, showing that if the car is
only used on the highway the brakes have no issues, claiming that the
car design is perfectly safe.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d
--H4SyuGOnfnj3aJqJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=L+a2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--H4SyuGOnfnj3aJqJ--
|
