Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3Trs-00069w-FV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:39:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.49; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Trr-0004DH-Hf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:39:52 +0000 Received: by yhpn97 with SMTP id n97so17128212yhp.0 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.77.194 with SMTP id t185mr20611564ykt.44.1434134386062; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.93.67 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.93.67 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150612183054.GD19199@muck> References: <20150612183054.GD19199@muck> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:39:46 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z3Trr-0004DH-Hf Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mining centralization pressure from non-uniform propagation speed 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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:39:52 -0000 --001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 If there is a benefit in producing larger more-fee blocks if they propagate slowly, then there is also a benefit in including high-fee transactions that are unlikely to propagate quickly through optimized relay protocols (for example: very recent transactions, or out-of-band receoved ones). This effect is likely an order of magnitude less important still, but the effect is likely the same. On Jun 12, 2015 8:31 PM, "Peter Todd" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 01:21:46PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > Nice work, Pieter. You're right that my simulation assumed bandwidth for > > 'block' messages isn't the bottleneck. > > > > But doesn't Matt's fast relay network (and the work I believe we're both > > planning on doing in the near future to further optimize block > propagation) > > make both of our simulations irrelevant in the long-run? > > Then simulate first the relay network assuming 100% of txs use it, and > secondly, assuming 100%-x use it. > > For instance, is it in miners' advantage in some cases to sabotage the > relay network? The analyse say yes, so lets simulate that. Equally even > the relay network isn't instant. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778 > --001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If there is a benefit in producing larger more-fee blocks if= they propagate slowly, then there is also a benefit in including high-fee = transactions that are unlikely to propagate quickly through optimized relay= protocols (for example: very recent transactions, or out-of-band receoved = ones). This effect is likely an order of magnitude less important still, bu= t the effect is likely the same.

On Jun 12, 2015 8:31 PM, "Peter Todd" = <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:=
On Fri, Jun 12, 201= 5 at 01:21:46PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Nice work, Pieter. You're right that my simulation assumed bandwid= th for
> 'block' messages isn't the bottleneck.
>
> But doesn't Matt's fast relay network (and the work I believe = we're both
> planning on doing in the near future to further optimize block propaga= tion)
> make both of our simulations irrelevant in the long-run?

Then simulate first the relay network assuming 100% of txs use it, and
secondly, assuming 100%-x use it.

For instance, is it in miners' advantage in some cases to sabotage the<= br> relay network? The analyse say yes, so lets simulate that. Equally even
the relay network isn't instant.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
--001a113a4cf4a43c310518566eb3--