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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <insecurity@national.shitposting.agency>)
id 1YrjiP-00015L-6W for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 11 May 2015 09:09:33 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of
national.shitposting.agency designates 75.102.27.230 as
permitted sender) client-ip=75.102.27.230;
envelope-from=insecurity@national.shitposting.agency;
helo=mail.cock.li;
Received: from cock.li ([75.102.27.230] helo=mail.cock.li)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YrjiO-0005rw-CL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 11 May 2015 09:09:33 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 08:50:20 +0000
From: insecurity@national.shitposting.agency
To: sergiolerner@certimix.com
Message-ID: <0cda31e339cfa74351ff7264ac07b406@national.shitposting.agency>
X-Sender: insecurity@national.shitposting.agency
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
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: 1YrjiO-0005rw-CL
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development]
=?utf-8?q?Reducing_the_block_rate_instead_o?=
=?utf-8?q?f_increasing=09the_maximum_block_size?=
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 09:09:33 -0000
> So if the server pushes new block
> header candidates to clients, then the problem boils down to increasing
> bandwidth of the servers to achieve a tenfold increase in work
> distribution.
Most Stratum pools already do multiple updates of the header every block
period,
bandwidth is really inconsequential, it's the latency that kills. At the
present
time you are looking up to 15 seconds between the first and last pools
to push
headers to their clients for the latest block. It's sort of
inconsequential with
a 10 minute block time, but it cuts into a 1 minute one very heavily.
Some pools already don't do their own validation of blocks, but simply
mirror
other pools, pushing them to be even more latency focused will just make
this an
epidemic of invalidity rather than a solution.
> There are several proof-of-work cryptocurrencies in existence
> that have lower than 1 minute block intervals and they work just fine.
> First there was Bitcoin with a 10 minute interval, then was LiteCoin
> using a 2.5 interval, then was DogeCoin with 1 minute, and then
> QuarkCoin with just 30 seconds.
You can't really use these as examples of things going just fine. None
of these
networks see anything approaching the Bitcoin transaction volume and
none have
even remotely the same network size. Some Bitcoin forks use floats in
consensus
critical code and work "just fine", for the moment. We can't justify
poor
decisions with "but the altcoins are doing it".
Is there even a single study of the stale rates within these networks?
|
