To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CABm2gDoF41_1g25F-+ujohGTTFPAZJCX+Xg1QPvt=jYijvb32g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <55C2D12D.7070302@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:14:53 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoF41_1g25F-+ujohGTTFPAZJCX+Xg1QPvt=jYijvb32g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Superluminal communication and the consensus
 block size limit
Precedence: list

On 8/5/2015 4:24 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Miner A is able to process 100 M tx/block while miner B is only able
> to process 10 M tx/block.
>

B needs to sell ASICs and buy 90 M tx worth of CPU. 

Or, if you cap blocksize at 10 M tx, than A needs to sell the exact same
amount of CPU and buy the exact same amount of ASICs.

Either way, Miner A ends up with the ASIC cost equivalent of 90 M tx
worth of CPU in additional hashing advantage over B.  The centralization
has nothing to do with block size.  It has to do with Miner A having
more money than Miner B.

Alternatively, you might need to add a few more crazy assumptions.