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
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
|
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 3F7CD1203
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:17:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com
[209.85.212.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E216216
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:17:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so72935198wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:17:19 -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;
bh=yLbyz7HlHbtFqu8uQ63NgIkE5VJErs7O07c3ukvNRuU=;
b=MAcZZqUC7KcF1zbuR34m+nEuB90nhIiYNJxwWZRup/Gljl2pIMlC5NyaP7uvmse5jp
oU6WGW46GuYv0S3e2vrYvEoDv7b/AZcZIqpT1l3DMKyUk6zyXHVYJK7lRj08P+Kzs6Al
uC8EhL2ypfs/+RIzVulwZYNM2dy4DrMBe5KvpD9SENUqUiNll8FK+ks+bUKb2ZmJTb7r
6XKc1UVkeEr9fS0lRS6FaGNjDbztSzREDGifKb12uqYl8MrBlPnOh1aw9Xd4uLqHMzTb
Ll+H4IpkXg/WDmr7bX3nVrTTOjFRxLyb4bW6YtvIPgallMSpVKKF/rzM8ffde944waWX
PeAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWbNIa8/GKV+TwOuFx4DatWM+SWiJIQdfdSMb3TNgN9yYnbALpYKeYHllctk3mx4lH6dyd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.122.97 with SMTP id lr1mr290688wjb.26.1441995439833;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUq484fRauFkiaTRc5GE7ZNVEqX_b7-JaSx5_tJeOp=Cjb=jQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUq485B5AoTpRBzf0=KFm-k58Zoz+ns-Y7BXc3JwG87VsDo+g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDrsnVEkcq2CPwK4fcJpwHj6ouTSRnk4U2bMBOPvjRuD_w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAUq486GxLw25TW2SV6d8vCCdhY5SEjfdAPCOhV6ta+hoyJY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTF5BxdeWm1PBBNwWm41o8Y3bMvgSyDm2_CE73ibXnnwiw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAUq484fRauFkiaTRc5GE7ZNVEqX_b7-JaSx5_tJeOp=Cjb=jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:17:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoi63+7uJ0tWXYnNXBrg93pZ7b=-NABDLJTWSxvOsxewg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228c70f59c6d051f7cb9d0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no 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] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise
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, 11 Sep 2015 18:17:22 -0000
--089e01228c70f59c6d051f7cb9d0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sep 11, 2015 1:54 PM, "Marcel Jamin" <marcel@jamin.net> wrote:
> And what they felt "remained fair to all to all miners and node operators
worldwide." Increasing network connection requirements might even decrease
mining centralization right now.
No. People seem to think "Chinese have slow connections? Screw them, free
competition."
But not being well connected with the other miners is not a problem for the
Chinese miners (who are the hashrate majority), it's a problem for the rest
of the miners!!
It's not about being well connected to the "global internet", it's about
being well connected to the hashrate majority.
> 2015-09-11 18:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>:
>>
>> Bitcoin security depends on the enforcement of consensus rules which
>> is done by economically dependent full nodes. This is distinct from
>> miners fullnodes, and balances miners interests, otherwise SPV nodes
>> and decentralisation of policy would tend degrade, I think. Therefore
>> it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes for
>> decentralisation security.
>>
>> Also you may want to read this summary of Bitcoin decentralisation by
Mark:
>>
>>
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes=
_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3
>>
>> I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also,
>> about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle
>> with current network infrastructure.
>>
>> I had proposed 2-4-8MB growing over a 4 year time frame with 2MB once
>> the hard-fork is upgraded by everyone in the network. (I dont
>> consider miner triggers, as with soft-fork upgrades, to be an
>> appropriate roll out mechanism because it is more important that
>> economically dependent full nodes upgrade, though it can be useful to
>> know that miners also have upgraded to a reasonable extent to avoid a
>> temporary hashrate drop off affecting security).
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On 9 September 2015 at 15:00, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining
operation and
>> > people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet
connection
>> > is infinitesimally small.
>> >
>> > 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev"
>> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I propose to:
>> >> >
>> >> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without
>> >> > driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems
currently
>> >> > running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.
>> >>
>> >> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>
--089e01228c70f59c6d051f7cb9d0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Sep 11, 2015 1:54 PM, "Marcel Jamin" <<a href=3D"mailto:mar=
cel@jamin.net">marcel@jamin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> And what they felt "remained fair to all=C2=A0to all miners and n=
ode operators worldwide." Increasing network connection requirements m=
ight even decrease mining centralization right now.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">No. People seem to think "Chinese have slow connections=
? Screw them, free competition."<br>
But not being well connected with the other miners is not a problem for the=
Chinese miners (who are the hashrate majority), it's a problem for the=
rest of the miners!!<br>
It's not about being well connected to the "global internet",=
it's about being well connected to the hashrate majority.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> 2015-09-11 18:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Back <<a href=3D"mai=
lto:adam@cypherspace.org">adam@cypherspace.org</a>>:<br>
>><br>
>> Bitcoin security depends on the enforcement of consensus rules whi=
ch<br>
>> is done by economically dependent full nodes.=C2=A0 This is distin=
ct from<br>
>> miners fullnodes, and balances miners interests, otherwise SPV nod=
es<br>
>> and decentralisation of policy would tend degrade, I think.=C2=A0 =
Therefore<br>
>> it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes=
for<br>
>> decentralisation security.<br>
>><br>
>> Also you may want to read this summary of Bitcoin decentralisation=
by Mark:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_l=
uke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3">https://www.reddit.com/r/Bi=
tcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3<=
/a><br>
>><br>
>> I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said al=
so,<br>
>> about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could hand=
le<br>
>> with current network infrastructure.<br>
>><br>
>> I had proposed 2-4-8MB growing over a 4 year time frame with 2MB o=
nce<br>
>> the hard-fork is upgraded by everyone in the network.=C2=A0 (I don=
t<br>
>> consider miner triggers, as with soft-fork upgrades, to be an<br>
>> appropriate roll out mechanism because it is more important that<b=
r>
>> economically dependent full nodes upgrade, though it can be useful=
to<br>
>> know that miners also have upgraded to a reasonable extent to avoi=
d a<br>
>> temporary hashrate drop off affecting security).<br>
>><br>
>> Adam<br>
>><br>
>> On 9 September 2015 at 15:00, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev<br>
>> <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious minin=
g operation and<br>
>> > people who are unable to afford a slightly above average inte=
rnet connection<br>
>> > is infinitesimally small.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon=
.cc>:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-de=
v"<br>
>> >> <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > I propose to:<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically p=
ossible without<br>
>> >> > driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most=
systems currently<br>
>> >> > running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.=
<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> What about the risk of further increasing mining centrali=
zation?<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>> > <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitc=
oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>> > <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo=
/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
v</a><br>
>> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</p>
--089e01228c70f59c6d051f7cb9d0--
|
