Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04B554D3 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:46:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 379F2102 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:46:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:45:59 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55D674C1.6000102@bitcoins.info> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:45:53 -0400 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: <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:46:04 -0000 The idea is to come up with some sort of standardized metric so as the tools and issues come up you are comparing similar things. The first thing you have to do is link "centralization pressure" and (pressure to merge with a big miner) to some sort of overall decentralization metric. For instance, how much do big miners reduce decentralization to begin with? That is a complicated analysis on its own. Then you can measure specif use cases with a tool like that. the idea at least is that the metrics do not "take sides" on any issue and just provide a measure of whatever it is you are measuring. most of the references have to do with measuring decentralization in political systems so a system would need to be developed to apply to software projects like Bitcoin: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/treisman/Papers/defin.pdf http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf Russ > > Pieter built a nice simulation tool and posted some results. > > 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. > > I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large blocks. > > 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). > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008820.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >