Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C23A8273 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:26:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com [209.85.220.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BD8689 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:26:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padfo6 with SMTP id fo6so33392203pad.0 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=o5zsptqafqSZ02xIkeIKI85z6YJ9dXGYgoFilzictcY=; b=nMDPQXPjUd9YJje1XJ7Dbi7A4dG3XKLzi3EVNnmcG5eN/V3/lWwKipdsBhC/hiipD+ 2LGv2qpGA/AK+3Gowrj+q60bxuhiKLCMNiUC4SSDusROkMwVtaoacrcZW9O5juHyzrwn uHYZk8bdhXEO7fwV8Gy24qzhRJoztkh59u91UtKwpyZ5vgYfwfoG+5IpZgjiQIN0+QUg wKry/iKf7Fr5KLkybef8yYmPOg1IIxIDo3m+WcMOZVA0duYwsQQdStXAniDzRaUejVvv vlLlbrPUHboqUd/SHIMpLarYmMPlK7a6ACKRSXDXW8oqX8xnDdmhfzd1J1gjb7OenpPH Vk1g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn7zqby8bd03UNT9J0vFKL0E2bOUP+EVnsPl1tmWMDTi4V8F7Ww5kXvPyMMAKnxOIga91vB X-Received: by 10.68.114.196 with SMTP id ji4mr11688126pbb.46.1440116790093; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id uv5sm5620612pbc.12.2015.08.20.17.26.28 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> From: Tom Harding Message-ID: <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:25:59 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 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 00:26:30 -0000 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). 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