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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1YzNrk-00028K-OE
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:26:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.114 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.114; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148114.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148114.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.114])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1YzNrj-0007c9-7V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:26:48 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t51BQcGL051955;
Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:26:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck ([80.123.251.178]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t51BQYgT059583
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:26:36 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:26:34 +0200
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150601112634.GA27160@muck>
References: <CAFzgq-z5WCznGhbOexS0XESNGAVauw45ewEV-1eMij7yDT61=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-zTybEQyGz0nq90u5n5JZcJzxQS_XKaTpr5POJi-tHM6A@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2L5bi-c63-KqSifOMeNayUWSPo0_Hx8VjMR_4=kC3ixg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUT61qYxqV0mOqw5Dan=eMiCvnG2SnsAeWzOWTxwLydyeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2hfpts5y_M6PdDcxmq9Q2smesJ0Nmp9a9iyPD_MoPC9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUTZV3YsaSCX2d5YwLetnf=f+bOWGrwxLXdZFywTZ=+Pjg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALC81CNq-GK5q6R4bmgHL5_Ej2+cZrtQMMLVmuhvMxkZokM3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUQr+kUPak67tcNQGGscUXtJiD1LiXfjdD8_LMUWyVdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP12WAcUOJp5UYg4pfWL7_4WiAHWWZAoaxAb5xB+qAP4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAM7BtUou9xfesF7srHQ1vVDUoArmWQvifcDwsXPFdh7NfgC1wA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM7BtUou9xfesF7srHQ1vVDUoArmWQvifcDwsXPFdh7NfgC1wA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: 10c5299e-0851-11e5-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdgMUEkAaAgsB AmMbWlZeUlt7WmQ7 YwpPbAdefEhLXhtr
V0BWR1pVCwQmRRkA dH93BX1ycgxDcH0+ ZE5iVnAVXUQpcER0
SxtJFWUDZHphaTUa TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDMCEw FVgoGTIkHgU+Rjc+
Zz0gIUQRFV0cen8/ KEYgQ18dPhkOEWUA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 80.123.251.178/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
X-Headers-End: 1YzNrj-0007c9-7V
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:26:48 -0000
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>=20
> > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardl=
ess
> > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if
> > they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amount=
s of
> > bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted =
then
> > OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
> >
>=20
> I'd rather think of mining as a responsibility than a right per se, but
> you're right in so far as it's competitive and self-correcting.
It's important to remember that the service Bitcoin miners are providing
us is *not* transaction validation, but rather decentralization.
Validation is something every full node does already; there's no
shortage of it. What's tricky is designing a Bitcoin protocol that
creates the appropriate incentives for mining to remain decentralized,
so we get good value for the large amount of money being sent to miners.
I've often likened this task to building a robot to go to the grocery
store to buy milk for you. If that robot doesn't have a nose, before
long store owners are going to realise it can't tell the difference
between unspoilt and spoilt milk, and you're going to get ripped off
paying for a bunch of spoiled milk.
Designing a Bitcoin protocol where we expect "competition" to result in
smaller miners in more geographically decentralized places to get
outcompeted by larger miners who are more geographically centralized
gets us bad value for our money. Sure it's "self-correcting", but not in
a way that we want.
> > But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> > on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
> >
> >
> Let's agree to disagree on this point.
Note how that VPN, and likely VPS it's connected too, immediately adds
another one or two points of failure to the whole system. Not only does
this decrease reliability, it also decreases security by making attacks
significantly easier - VPS security is orders of magnitude worse than
the security of physical hardware.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000e187b95a9159d04a3586dd4cbc068be88a3eafcb5b885f9
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVbEFmXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwZTE4N2I5NWE5MTU5ZDA0YTM1ODZkZDRjYmMwNjhiZTg4
YTNlYWZjYjViODg1ZjkvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udxN+Qf+Jroy7N71TcQDC//t2GlqWl74
DzTGbtWL4edTC4aJ+DSuPgWji3Q7d0PDZ4PJRBbvZZFr5cep7NsMtT3Ocl+H7/gy
pDq+Hv52TkF8mORHCG1hdLF+c5hOxqCRSoxJKdWNFOa1PJ+4j6DIyw2PGYCsQ0yN
JGP7Bu71LeazqZ3K0UBjJNPC2hbgYgWbTuit3wf52Z82jRudSQP6B7RQg2x10keZ
Xo8/y0w6cUgN7HzSprzlQxlad2IT2FIt13YG+Zurm8uFZ4tj7S19Fw4p51vIqKam
TK6C7YjFluWh7oQrNIpfszgIbYNOUFhIfa6veXoMMV0KXkW/ywGHFLkm1gj3Aw==
=zsAp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z--
|
