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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Z3TjX-0000gl-QU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:31:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.154 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.154; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk;
Received: from outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.154])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Z3TjW-0004Jw-Lc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:31:15 +0000
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIV5tq070538;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:31:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck ([85.255.235.202]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5CIV0Fe063537
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:31:03 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:30:54 +0100
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150612183054.GD19199@muck>
References: <CAPg+sBi5fYHGLv4wtWbWE7jov8CX=q9UX=vhxDVepG6JfX30+g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1=+S+dAdwASECUCkrVaMFT0TcmL7MiwnCuCx0MkF6sWw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1=+S+dAdwASECUCkrVaMFT0TcmL7MiwnCuCx0MkF6sWw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: 2ec31024-1131-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdwAUEkAaAgsB AmMbWl1eU1x7WWc7 Yw9PbwBYfEhNWhto
UEpWR1pVCwQmRRly f3geJExycQZDe3k+ bE9iWj5ZCRd5dEZ/
RlNVFG4HeGZhPWUC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4uHzg9 QR9KFjgpAVcMQyQh
JgAnLVhUBFwcKV4v K1ZpV0gfNn1aDApY WlxLASFePVxJXzAs
FQpVVFIfFzsVWj9R DxFA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 85.255.235.202/587
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: 1Z3TjW-0004Jw-Lc
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mining centralization pressure from
non-uniform propagation speed
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:31:15 -0000
--XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 01:21:46PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Nice work, Pieter. You're right that my simulation assumed bandwidth for
> 'block' messages isn't the bottleneck.
>=20
> But doesn't Matt's fast relay network (and the work I believe we're both
> planning on doing in the near future to further optimize block propagatio=
n)
> make both of our simulations irrelevant in the long-run?
Then simulate first the relay network assuming 100% of txs use it, and
secondly, assuming 100%-x use it.
For instance, is it in miners' advantage in some cases to sabotage the
relay network? The analyse say yes, so lets simulate that. Equally even
the relay network isn't instant.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
--XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=mSxu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x--
|
