Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzNrk-00028K-OE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:26:48 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.114 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.114; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148114.authsmtp.net; Received: from outmail148114.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.114]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YzNrj-0007c9-7V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:26:48 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t51BQcGL051955; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:26:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck ([80.123.251.178]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t51BQYgT059583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:26:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:26:34 +0200 From: Peter Todd To: Pindar Wong Message-ID: <20150601112634.GA27160@muck> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Server-Quench: 10c5299e-0851-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgMUEkAaAgsB AmMbWlZeUlt7WmQ7 YwpPbAdefEhLXhtr V0BWR1pVCwQmRRkA dH93BX1ycgxDcH0+ ZE5iVnAVXUQpcER0 SxtJFWUDZHphaTUa TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDMCEw FVgoGTIkHgU+Rjc+ Zz0gIUQRFV0cen8/ KEYgQ18dPhkOEWUA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 80.123.251.178/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YzNrj-0007c9-7V Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:26:48 -0000 --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >=20 > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardl= ess > > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if > > they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amount= s of > > bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted = then > > OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them. > > >=20 > I'd rather think of mining as a responsibility than a right per se, but > you're right in so far as it's competitive and self-correcting. It's important to remember that the service Bitcoin miners are providing us is *not* transaction validation, but rather decentralization. Validation is something every full node does already; there's no shortage of it. What's tricky is designing a Bitcoin protocol that creates the appropriate incentives for mining to remain decentralized, so we get good value for the large amount of money being sent to miners. I've often likened this task to building a robot to go to the grocery store to buy milk for you. If that robot doesn't have a nose, before long store owners are going to realise it can't tell the difference between unspoilt and spoilt milk, and you're going to get ripped off paying for a bunch of spoiled milk. Designing a Bitcoin protocol where we expect "competition" to result in smaller miners in more geographically decentralized places to get outcompeted by larger miners who are more geographically centralized gets us bad value for our money. Sure it's "self-correcting", but not in a way that we want. > > But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node > > on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so. > > > > > Let's agree to disagree on this point. Note how that VPN, and likely VPS it's connected too, immediately adds another one or two points of failure to the whole system. Not only does this decrease reliability, it also decreases security by making attacks significantly easier - VPS security is orders of magnitude worse than the security of physical hardware. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000e187b95a9159d04a3586dd4cbc068be88a3eafcb5b885f9 --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVbEFmXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwZTE4N2I5NWE5MTU5ZDA0YTM1ODZkZDRjYmMwNjhiZTg4 YTNlYWZjYjViODg1ZjkvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udxN+Qf+Jroy7N71TcQDC//t2GlqWl74 DzTGbtWL4edTC4aJ+DSuPgWji3Q7d0PDZ4PJRBbvZZFr5cep7NsMtT3Ocl+H7/gy pDq+Hv52TkF8mORHCG1hdLF+c5hOxqCRSoxJKdWNFOa1PJ+4j6DIyw2PGYCsQ0yN JGP7Bu71LeazqZ3K0UBjJNPC2hbgYgWbTuit3wf52Z82jRudSQP6B7RQg2x10keZ Xo8/y0w6cUgN7HzSprzlQxlad2IT2FIt13YG+Zurm8uFZ4tj7S19Fw4p51vIqKam TK6C7YjFluWh7oQrNIpfszgIbYNOUFhIfa6veXoMMV0KXkW/ywGHFLkm1gj3Aw== =zsAp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z--