Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6824FFF for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:27:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com (mail-la0-f49.google.com [209.85.215.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2EF0106 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labgv11 with SMTP id gv11so854007lab.2 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:27:03 -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=Wny4wzqkX4Nv9XDRrKgaOMBujtojEAny6/hbbV5WrB8=; b=WFHCPimaI8Y0U1JqfxBmJIO9qTOIAisVXZCCthaVgV+3a4RmctqgPcMIUBihEnf+fF zoEpEkwQuOLT40sJV4x4MKyiG8wrxq/Oa51UPJYIIe+kBIxgEmzxwEWOmZZeierRrS1F IF5T6LXaivtmg5HVFl7aNR2ywwUP7ZVeNpDJcUNWkMcgi5CupgsfZcGpw7njBPMhnBzI bFO2dNWphMtsv7Le3bjJR/sbnDKJfcHJCgw/LluGOXpyMz0E7jL7Bcp5gBbWpiMw/0wp hjBlKHdYOlmdLkxZG8abTWRGU7w6GkSKRGz4sAbL7edTcphhSOe6MCcmUR6LUXWxiT9k OfQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmxBQz/zgyE9TQ6Str+koCtQ3nbOYSAMfO0Q7waocfqBO3zfEDt2gGiNS13rv6nVFdxkIUY MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.156.168 with SMTP id wf8mr18108164lbb.114.1440383223091; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:27:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55DA5A1C.8080105@thinlink.com> References: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> <20150821003751.GA19230@muck> <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com> <20150821222153.GD7450@muck> <55D7B157.904@thinlink.com> <20150822000127.GA5679@muck> <55DA5A1C.8080105@thinlink.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 04:27:02 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Tom Harding Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:27:05 -0000 On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 8/21/2015 5:01 PM, Peter Todd wrote: >> >>> I checked the scenario where only the radio is on, and found the car >>> does not crash. >> Incidentally, what's your acceptable revenue difference between a small >> (1% hashing power) and large (%30 hashing power) miner, all else being >> equal? (remember that we shouldn't preclude variance reduction >> techniques such as p2pool and pooled-solo mode) >> >> Equally, what kind of attacks on miners do you think we need to be able to >> resist? E.g. DoS attacks, hacking, etc. >> > > None of this is in the scope of Pieter's simulation. > > If you think that casts doubt on my conclusions, then it casts doubt on > his original conclusions as well. As far as I know, "his conclusions" were that there was an effect, while suspending judgement on whether that effect was high enough to be important for a given size or not.