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
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
|
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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1YyStf-0002bc-Lc
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 29 May 2015 22:36:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.44; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f44.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YySte-0006j5-68
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 29 May 2015 22:36:59 +0000
Received: by labko7 with SMTP id ko7so62288744lab.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 29 May 2015 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.50.74 with SMTP id a10mr10188768lbo.4.1432939011815;
Fri, 29 May 2015 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:36:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2ysKj5HVbN_7_o33fMehs4KH6E_R583Mt_VPC4gDA0LQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1YySte-0006j5-68
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements
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: Fri, 29 May 2015 22:36:59 -0000
--001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Matt brought this up on Twitter, I have no idea why I didn't respond weeks
ago (busy writing blog posts, probably):
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
wrote:
>
>
> * Though there are many proposals floating around which could
> significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are
> implemented today.
If block propagation isn't fixed, then mines have a strong incentive to
create smaller blocks.
So the max block size is irrelevant, it won't get hit.
> In addition, I'd expect to
> see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just
> packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system.
>
See http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
for analysis of "but that means bigger miners can get an advantage"
argument.
Executive summary: if little miners are stupid and produce huge blocks,
then yes, big miners have an advantage.
But they're not, so they won't.
Until the block reward goes away, and assuming transaction fees become an
important source of revenue for miners.
I think it is too early to worry about that; see:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away
> * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling
> technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting
> traction in the marketplace.
Ok. What does this have to do with the max block size?
Are you arguing that work won't happen if the max block size increases?
* I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around
> long-term incentives within the system.
Again, see http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away for
what I think about that.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Matt brought this up on Twitter, I have no idea why I didn=
't respond weeks ago (busy writing blog posts, probably):<br><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:02=
PM, Matt Corallo <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-list@blue=
matt.me" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-list@bluematt.me</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
=C2=A0* Though there are many proposals floating around which could<br>
significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are<br>
implemented today.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>If block propagation isn=
't fixed, then mines have a strong incentive to create smaller blocks.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>So the max block size is irrelevant, it won't =
get hit.</div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(20=
4,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">In addition, I'd e=
xpect to<br>
see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just<br>
packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system.=
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>See=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://gavinandres=
en.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners">http://gavinandresen.n=
inja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners</a> for analysis of "b=
ut that means bigger miners can get an advantage" argument.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>Executive summary: if little miners are stupid and produce h=
uge blocks, then yes, big miners have an advantage.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>But they're not, so they won't.</div><div><br></div><div>Until th=
e block reward goes away, and assuming transaction fees become an important=
source of revenue for miners.</div><div>I think it is too early to worry a=
bout that; see:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"http://gav=
inandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away">http://gavinandresen.ninj=
a/when-the-block-reward-goes-away</a></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;=
border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex=
">
=C2=A0* I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling<br>
technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting<br>
traction in the marketplace. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok. What does=
this have to do with the max block size?</div><div><br></div><div>Are you =
arguing that work won't happen if the max block size increases?</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>=C2=A0 * I'd like to see some better conclusions to t=
he discussion around</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)=
;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
long-term incentives within the system.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Aga=
in, see=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-go=
es-away">http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away</a> for=
what I think about that.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>
--001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9--
|
