From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:52:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150821003751.GA19230@muck>
On 8/20/2015 5:37 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large
blocks. >> > > You used 20% as the size of the large miner, with all the
small miners > having good connectivity with each other. > > That is
*not* the scenario we're worried about. The math behind the > issue is
that the a miner needs to get their blocks to at least 33% of > hashing
power, but more than that is unnecessary and only helps their >
competition; you simulated 20%, which is under that threshold. Equally,
> why are you assuming the small miner group is well connected to each >
other? > > You probably didn't get any replies because your experiment
is obviously > wrong and misguided, and we're all busy. >
I gave the small miners collectively the same hashrate as the large
miners in the original test. I made them well-connected because
everyone was well-connected intra-partition in the original test.
I just varied one thing: the size of the miners. This is a principle of
experiment design, in science.
Next you'll probably claim that second-order and cross-term effects
dominate. Maybe you can find the time to prove it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-21 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-18 12:13 Upal Chakraborty
2015-08-18 17:26 ` Chris Wardell
2015-08-20 7:31 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20 10:23 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-21 0:25 ` Tom Harding
2015-08-21 0:37 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 16:52 ` Tom Harding [this message]
2015-08-21 22:21 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 23:16 ` Tom Harding
2015-08-22 0:01 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-22 3:21 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-22 6:26 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-23 23:41 ` Tom Harding
2015-08-24 2:27 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-21 0:45 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-21 0:58 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 1:30 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-21 20:28 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-21 12:13 ` Sriram Karra
2015-08-21 20:09 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-18 19:44 ` cedric perronnet
2015-08-18 20:58 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-18 21:17 ` Chris Wardell
2015-08-19 17:21 ` Upal Chakraborty
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-08-21 21:45 Upal Chakraborty
2015-08-20 15:02 Upal Chakraborty
2015-08-17 11:57 Rodney Morris
2015-08-17 12:38 ` Angel Leon
2015-08-17 12:43 ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-17 9:44 Upal Chakraborty
2015-08-17 9:54 ` Levin Keller
2015-08-17 9:59 ` Patrick Strateman
2015-08-17 10:51 ` Btc Drak
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=55D7575B.6030505@thinlink.com \
--to=tomh@thinlink$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)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