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
|
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 89226279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:38:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148096.authsmtp.net (outmail148096.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.96])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21C0102
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L0c0ff056696;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:38:00 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck (s75-157-242-51.bc.hsia.telus.net [75.157.242.51])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L0bqFl093951
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:37:57 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:37:51 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <20150821003751.GA19230@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com>
X-Server-Quench: df6f1a78-479c-11e5-b398-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAMUGUATAgsB AmMbW1VeU1p7XGo7 bA9PbABafEhKXRtv
UVdMSlVNFUssBmAB VF9oDhl7dAxDeTB3 ZE5qECQNWhJ7JEF1
X0pTHD4bZGY1bX1N U0lQagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDSg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx5 UwcEKFMZSEIPD3YX QBYeBzIrGUAJDw8y
MxchK1hUNkIWOUZ6 ClozVBo9Og9aIQRG dwAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.157.242.51/587
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 00:38:02 -0000
--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 3:23 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >>For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
> >>
> >>The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
> >>(which is currently pretty bad).
> >
> >Instead of posting all these messages with bald claims why don't
> >you work on a decentralization metric which you can point to?
> >(instead of trying to claim people don't understand things which
> >is clearly not the case, You are just attacking people you don't
> >agree with).
>=20
>=20
> Pieter built a nice simulation tool and posted some results.
>=20
> I tweaked the parameters and ran the tool in a way that tested ONLY
> for hashrate centralization effects, and did not conflate these with
> network partitioning effects.
>=20
> I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large blocks.
>=20
> The only person who commented on this result agreed with me. He
> also complimented Pieter's insight (which is entirely appropriate
> since Pieter did the hard work of creating the tool).
>=20
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008820.h=
tml
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
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d
--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=sNv+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4--
|
