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
|
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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1YyhGe-0004xf-0H
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 30 May 2015 13:57:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YyhGc-000768-Ml
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 30 May 2015 13:57:39 +0000
Received: by labko7 with SMTP id ko7so70081266lab.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 30 May 2015 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.43.110 with SMTP id v14mr12734574lal.4.1432994252155;
Sat, 30 May 2015 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sat, 30 May 2015 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-xByQ1E_33_m3UpXQFUkGc78HKnA=7XXMshANDuTkNsvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
<CAFzgq-xByQ1E_33_m3UpXQFUkGc78HKnA=7XXMshANDuTkNsvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 09:57:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0kbRe31LMwk499MQUw225f5GGd67GfhXBezHmDqxkioA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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
X-Headers-End: 1YyhGc-000768-Ml
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Sat, 30 May 2015 13:57:40 -0000
--001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on
> the network.
Thanks for giving your opinion!
> Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial
> big blocks.
How?
I ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a big
miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner
(big or small) producing smaller blocks:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
(the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situation where EVERYBODY was
producing big blocks).
> We think
> the max block size should be increased, but must be increased
> smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB,
> and so on. Thanks.
Why 2 MB ? You said that server bandwidth is much more expensive in
China; what would be the difference in your bandwidth costs between 2MB
blocks and 20MB blocks?
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:1240902@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">1240902@gmail.com</a>></span> w=
rote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-styl=
e:solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining =
the biggest blocks on<br>
the network. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for giving your opinio=
n!</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Bad miners could a=
ttack us and the network with artificial<br>
big blocks.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>How?</div><div><br></div><div>I=
ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a big =
miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner (b=
ig or small) producing smaller blocks:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"=
http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners">http=
://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners</a><br></=
div><div><br></div><div>(the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situatio=
n where EVERYBODY was producing big blocks).</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-wid=
th:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex">We think<br>
the max block size should be increased, but must be increased<br>
smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB,<br>
and so on. Thanks.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why 2 MB ? =C2=A0 You sa=
id that server bandwidth is much more expensive in China; what would be the=
difference in your bandwidth costs between 2MB blocks and 20MB blocks?</di=
v><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signatur=
e">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>
--001a11c351525d6f7905174cf954--
|
