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
95
96
|
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 C23A8273
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:26:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by padfo6 with SMTP id fo6so33392203pad.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(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: <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>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
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 <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 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
|
