From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] "A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit"--new research paper suggests
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:45:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55C2A012.7080908@thinlink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2312E340-EA7D-48DC-B3FF-319D6AF9E955@hashingit.com>
On 8/5/2015 3:44 PM, Dave Hudson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I do suspect that if we were to model this more accurately we might be
> able to infer the "typical" propagation characteristics by measuring
> the deviation from the expected distribution.
The paper models propagation using a single time value that is a
function of block size. Modeling the propagation distribution (which is
totally separate from the poisson model of block production) would add a
lot of complexity and my guess is the outcome would be little changed.
>> On 5 Aug 2015, at 15:15, Peter R <peter_r@gmx•com> wrote:
>> Although a miner may not orphan his own block, by building on his own block he may now orphan two blocks in a row. At some point, his solution or solutions must be communicated to his peers.
Why complicate the analysis by assuming that a miner who finds two
blocks sequentially does not publish the first, or that other miners
would orphan miner's first block unless both were very quick? In
general you don't consider anything beyond 1 block in the future, which
seems fine.
>>> I suspect this may well change some of the conclusions as larger block makers will definitely be able to create larger blocks than their smaller counterparts.
>> It will be interesting to see. I suspect that the main result that "a healthy fee market exists" will still hold (assuming of course that a single miner with >50% of the hash power isn't acting maliciously). Whether miners with larger value of h/H have a profit advantage, I'm not sure (but that was outside the scope of the paper anyways).
Correcting for non-orphaning of one's own blocks could be as simple as
adding a factor (1 - h/H) to equation 4, which it appears would leave
hashpower as an independent variable in the results. But at worst, the
discussion can be considered to apply directly only to low-hashpower
miners right now.
Overall, the paper does not predict big changes to per/kb fees or spam
costs for the kinds of block sizes being discussed for the immediate
future (8MB). But it does conclude that these fees will rise, not fall,
with bigger blocks.
Also it is welcome that this paper actually mentions the bitcoin
exchange rate as a factor in relation to block size (it points out that
a spam attack is much more expensive in fiat terms today than it was
years ago).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-05 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-03 15:22 [bitcoin-dev] Eli Dourado on "governance" Gavin Andresen
[not found] ` <1438640036.2828.0.camel@auspira.com>
2015-08-03 22:21 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-04 6:40 ` [bitcoin-dev] "A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit"--new research paper suggests Peter R
2015-08-04 18:41 ` Dave Hudson
2015-08-04 21:18 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-04 21:30 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-04 21:46 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-05 0:26 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-05 0:40 ` Neil Fincham
2015-08-04 23:37 ` Dave Hudson
2015-08-05 22:15 ` Peter R
2015-08-05 22:44 ` Dave Hudson
2015-08-05 23:45 ` Tom Harding [this message]
2015-08-05 8:33 ` Benjamin
2015-08-05 9:18 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-05 9:57 ` Adam Back
2015-08-05 10:51 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-05 11:07 ` Adam Back
2015-08-05 11:35 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-05 19:04 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-05 10:26 ` Peter R
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgTzeFnmnr2ScZvf1pDUtF+M3HhF9xo0yhjVPObpqhgz0A@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <6ED57388-6EC3-4515-BF3F-E753301537AB@gmx.com>
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgRoFna4i-d=hpmz-CpV35VQ=J1aEoTTT6B1oD4f15C1KA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <C8B38FEC-0EF2-483F-9E53-43AB937455A0@gmx.com>
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgQjXNTi9Y_YwLg2dR8baYZhvmEjw43ictt749zR2AOEWw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <6FED5604-4A6F-4CE1-B42E-36626375D557@gmx.com>
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgQ7hRRvRtD8igcZ2aWBmnqre6iM27peCFGxgC8ODb9jgw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <6BA86443-7534-4AAA-92BC-EC9B1603DE5F@gmx.com>
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgTTZKD9LQHpMmEH0OU=T8Ta7cCaavWzhM1yQ68-MAT8UQ@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <27B16AB4-0DAD-4665-BF08-7A0C0A70D8D8@gmx.com>
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgRm_CSmWgr7CGmBUD0nX+V0fJ8N4TQN01Vchgip9-s6uQ@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgT+DP+DaoCMG276uF4=Yoi-w40YyNP-RDRG7NQgOmtpGw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAEgR2PGn_SER18sMuKPJJz5RT=1K=346eCm ph5FJQhhoLcV1zw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAEgR2PGn_SER18sMuKPJJz5RT=1K=346eCmph5FJQhhoLcV1zw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-08-30 20:08 ` Peter R
2015-08-30 21:02 ` Daniele Pinna
2015-08-04 14:22 ` [bitcoin-dev] Eli Dourado on "governance" Anthony Towns
2015-08-04 18:28 ` Owen
2015-08-05 3:07 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-05 6:32 ` Mashuri Clark
2015-08-05 13:28 ` Mashuri Clark
2015-08-07 16:26 ` Thomas Zander
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=55C2A012.7080908@thinlink.com \
--to=tomh@thinlink$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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