1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7EAF9C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:52:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com
[209.85.220.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53820AB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:52:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pawq9 with SMTP id q9so56327188paw.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:52:46 -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:cc:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=R/Gm46cZhiyRWuNSiJOGPghxcz5zvvHIfrreiN2LjZc=;
b=dN3/uTml6rlKEIpfyFdWbDhI+r+vAKFIG5UmFjF0PpHK9MjJiZ9+VSGIsdWUL0Q26p
Gnh0gGjqkVDn1qtzus+23zK9uayUX8oy6Lc46fQlZ8tAbMiShWHuq7UsLzXe5m7Iu96K
2Ibj4DUVfwDEvwg38//8reoDxIF/w4s7AvPGbMSGv7Li3E/3v1xdtrljW6Dh7L7hwmO2
37S34jT5PjCS+00bfyG4wSky2DZoeRjdlM54z68EBcGyo+t0E26enZtTNevjp1CdJpaT
ausf7JchFaHyJHj99ofNzfIA2STIoaW8drV76rlj6xdDExyPBdA4kjo4tHbAUjK8CgSn
JfaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlACc0OGg3iaDEna4+VSnWIbjjl7kCnTgLNMKpJHPR2OEVLTIfQEn3nQGUZO5F36hz8S11R
X-Received: by 10.68.117.142 with SMTP id ke14mr19149245pbb.93.1440175965849;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
ew13sm8428299pac.25.2015.08.21.09.52.43
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
References: <CAED3CWgTOMFgaM6bBfU0Dn-R0NrdrhGAQo34wHEneYkTtB4Opg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEieSeSw04FYCCa-Df+V6BgJo1RHqPvJWt9t=c-JCC=dnhraWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp0o5DBzuoyZ=SFvnBXTwPYFWhdOqUPkP_M_3koNMVP1g@mail.gmail.com>
<55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info> <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com>
<20150821003751.GA19230@muck>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:52:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150821003751.GA19230@muck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:52:46 -0000
On 8/20/2015 5:37 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large
blocks. >> > > You used 20% as the size of the large miner, with all the
small miners > having good connectivity with each other. > > That is
*not* the scenario we're worried about. The math behind the > issue is
that the a miner needs to get their blocks to at least 33% of > hashing
power, but more than that is unnecessary and only helps their >
competition; you simulated 20%, which is under that threshold. Equally,
> why are you assuming the small miner group is well connected to each >
other? > > You probably didn't get any replies because your experiment
is obviously > wrong and misguided, and we're all busy. >
I gave the small miners collectively the same hashrate as the large
miners in the original test. I made them well-connected because
everyone was well-connected intra-partition in the original test.
I just varied one thing: the size of the miners. This is a principle of
experiment design, in science.
Next you'll probably claim that second-order and cross-term effects
dominate. Maybe you can find the time to prove it.
|
