From: insecurity@national•shitposting.agency
To: sergiolerner@certimix•com
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reducing the block rate instead of increasing the maximum block size
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 08:50:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cda31e339cfa74351ff7264ac07b406@national.shitposting.agency> (raw)
> 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?
next reply other threads:[~2015-05-11 9:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-11 8:50 insecurity [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-11 7:30 Thy Shizzle
2015-05-11 8:16 ` Dave Hudson
2015-05-11 7:03 Sergio Lerner
2015-05-11 10:34 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-11 11:10 ` insecurity
2015-05-11 11:49 ` Dave Hudson
2015-05-11 12:34 ` Christian Decker
2015-05-11 16:47 ` Luke Dashjr
[not found] ` <5551021E.8010706@LeoWandersleb.de>
2015-05-12 18:55 ` Sergio Lerner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0cda31e339cfa74351ff7264ac07b406@national.shitposting.agency \
--to=insecurity@national$(echo .)shitposting.agency \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=sergiolerner@certimix$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox