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
|
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 685AC279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 02:33:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com
[209.85.212.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB997E8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 02:33:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibhh20 with SMTP id hh20so4915087wib.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:33:12 -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
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=OtypaEUvjwXphocgoQ9cK9/NJYKOcaEKSvbZiKDg7EU=;
b=Wv8MnEwr8DP/ppILsjN51PsQznT+mnZtRHONQ5s0hKAV4kQvsbee/xv1+cHSb4TzPX
k+kP5Rayzmadf9lYegObSxClRjLUcp1eGoj1RRIjykTm/IKKEYOqQMdaxy4WBqIMW1nJ
w5qUjUNwrb9yWsOKbidf1mNLWLeclNVjb28H8VLDPefgOC0WD/pfKVdsxKK+zdjRlAc9
nYmWI988CA7J1saswCnkFH/tPcv1tR3vfoE083mE6150AwVqm4qnPAqWSyghVKYQLggT
CMSr1DMBNZYKLBZ7HwvIy1aNtcUAkMYGMB7ArC2uxSqinvvG7mof2BPtMwK4smTA7CUY
DPOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnuC9Z3Mjv9sN3ruLKfgs/pR2RRuwB4TNHGV4gFk3P9Gh/JY/tgCiYL6KNDof++m7BMJv1M
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.13.195 with SMTP id fa3mr1624091wid.7.1438828392020;
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0Wt7pSx2Qgcu8tSeyQuhBkH=fpLXhj-=UsXHJzqkVKnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDoF41_1g25F-+ujohGTTFPAZJCX+Xg1QPvt=jYijvb32g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0Wt7pSx2Qgcu8tSeyQuhBkH=fpLXhj-=UsXHJzqkVKnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 04:33:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrg3jzUgO-STwiwcyta07sgWL+7YEj7Rj5RQc6kFcoo+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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] Superluminal communication and the consensus
block size limit
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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 02:33:14 -0000
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Miner A is able to process 100 M tx/block while miner B is only able
>> to process 10 M tx/block.
>>
>> Will miner B be able to maintain itself competitive against miner B?
>>
>> The answer is: it depends on the consensus maximum block size.
>
>
> No, it depends on all of the variables that go into the mining profitabil=
ity
> equation.
>
> Does miner B have access to cheaper electricity than miner A?
> Access to more advanced mining hardware, sooner?
> Access to inexpensive labor to oversee their operations?
> Access to inexpensive capital to finance investment in hardware?
Yes, of course.
I didn't say "it only depends", just "it depends".
The example is focused on CPU as the "centralizing factor".
And still, all costs are already included in the example:
"Difficulty will tend to increase until the cost to produce a block
(including interest in all the capital needed, paid or not) is equal
to [...]"
I'm focusing on gains but I didn't forget to subtract costs at the end.
I may have "weird" economic ideas, but that will usually just mean
that I mention "interest" in contexts where you may think it is not
relevant.
In other words, expect me to "sin" by excess rather than omission when
it comes to economic costs.
> Ability to use excess heat generated from mining productively?
I agree that mining profitability can radically change in this case
(ie a home heater miner is competing with other heaters, not with
other bitcoin miners).
But until such an economic breakthrough happens I would rather not
rely on it happening.
This could certainly change the mining centralization dynamics in a radical=
way.
Note that if I buy a heater for 20 usd and expect to mine 5 usd worth
of btc this winter, I will consider it cheaper than an
equivalently-energy-consuming non-mining heater sold for 16 usd.
Maybe next year a more mining-efficient heater will be sold that will
still mine 5 usd worth of btc in its first winter, while my old one
will only mine 0.5 usd the second winter. That's completely fine, it's
0.5 usd extra savings and I was already happy with 1 usd savings in
the first year!
This can be applied to small home heaters, full-building heaters...
Apparently the future doesn't look so bright when it comes to
industrial heating because higher temperatures are needed, but I'm
really optimistic about mining as a byproduct of human-heating
artifacts.
This would also mean that part of the total hashrate would travel the
globe with the winter, which would also have its own benefits (and
maybe new risks?) to decentralization.
When/If this happens, I think everybody should carefully reconsider
all their assumptions about mining centralization.
By "this", I mean production of mining devices whose primary purpose
it's not mining but rather heating (I don't think many people realize
about the huge economic consequences of this seemingly-small
difference, not even companies specialized in bitcoin mining ASIC
production).
It would also save me a lot of discussions with some ecologist friends
(the fact is that I'm much more worried about bitcoin's huge subsidies
on bitcoin's mining and what that means to the environment than I
usually let them know), but that's another topic...
> The number of fee-paying transactions a miner can profitably include in
> their blocks will certainly eventually be part of that equation (it is
> insignificant today), and that's fantastic-- we WANT miners to include lo=
ts
> of transactions in their blocks.
At the same time we want mining to be (I was going to say "remain" but
I can't help with being pessimistic about the current mining
situation) decentralized, don't we?
|
